Transportation Vision 21 Task Force final report to the Governor

17123.pdf
[25.99 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.

File Format:

Adobe Reader

Executive Summary
i-1
Key Task Force Findings and Recommendations
The Transportation Vision 21 Task Force has
identified ten major recommendations to
improve Arizona’s statewide transportation
system based on its studies and findings. The
following section highlights the Task Force’s key
recommendations and some of the findings that
support the recommendations.
Reform and Improve Transportation Planning and Programming Processes
Task Force Findings:
Performance based planning and programming
used effectively in other states to maximize the
effectiveness of limited transportation resources.
Major Recommendation One:
REQUIRE PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING AND
PROGRAMMING
All transportation planning and programming
organizations within Arizona should be required
to utilize performance based planning and
programming techniques. The State
Transportation Board should adopt approved
performance based planning and programming
processes for use by all such organizations. All
organizations charged with developing
transportation priorities within the State should
be mandated, by law, to use the adopted
processes.
Task Force Findings:
Arizona needs an integrated long-range (at least
20 years) transportation plan. A 20-year plan
will identify the State’s critical transportation
needs. The Plan should include all modes of
transportation including roadway, rail, transit,
air, bicycle, pedestrian, and freight as well as
alternatives including travel reduction programs
and telecommunications.
Major Recommendation Two:
DEVELOP AND ADOPT A LONG-RANGE,
STATEWIDE, MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
State law should require the State Transportation
Board to adopt a Long-Range (minimum of
twenty years), Statewide, Multimodal
Transportation Plan. ADOT should develop the
Plan, under the State Transportation Board’s
direction, utilizing performance based planning
techniques. The Plan should incorporate all
modes of transportation, the transportation
needs of all regions and all jurisdictions within
the state and should consider any information
developed as a result of federally mandated
planning processes.
Task Force Findings:
There is a distinct gap in the coordination of land
use plans among state, local and regional
transportation plans.
Major Recommendation Three:
COORDINATE LAND USE PLANNING AND
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
State, regional and local planning entities must
increase coordination of their long-range, land
use plans and their long-range transportation
plans.
Local land use plans must consider state and
regional transportation plans, especially with
respect to future transportation system corridors.
i-2
In turn, state and regional transportation plans
should recognize local land use plans. Where
appropriate, these plans should also incorporate
air quality measures.
The coordination and consideration of the
overlaying transportation system plans and land
use plans by all affected jurisdictions will
increase the usefulness and benefits of those
plans and will help avoid unintended conflicts in
the future.
Enhance Transportation System Accountability and Responsiveness
Task Force Findings:
There is a lack of verifiable and standardized
data to measure how effectively transportation
improvements and services are meeting our
State’s existing and future transportation
demands or needs.
New computer technologies (e.g. Highway
Performance Measurement System) have made it
feasible for the state to develop an affordable
and comprehensive transportation database to
inventory and to monitor state, county, local and
tribal roadway systems.
Major Recommendation Four:
ESTABLISH COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
ADOT should be required to establish a
comprehensive financial management system
encompassing all aspects of the state
transportation system. The comprehensive
system should include separate certifications of
future, estimated revenues and future, estimated
system costs as reflected in the statewide 20-
year transportation plan. All transportation
revenues (federal, state and local/regional)
received by all state agencies should be included
in the certification.
Task Force Findings:
Mayors elected from individual cities control the
Metropolitan Planning Organizations within the
State. This structure establishes an inherent
conflict between the regional responsibilities of
the MPO and the local responsibilities of each
mayor. Locally elected mayors are obligated to
represent the best interests of their constituents
and most act accordingly. Therefore, regional
plans and priorities are frequently evaluated on
the basis of local impacts, rather than regional
consequences.
Beginning in the late 1990’s cities moved to fund
transportation projects, especially transit
services, through local tax referenda. While
successful passage of these local tax elections
may help meet municipal needs, they do not
address regional transportation facilities or
services.
Major Recommendation Five:
ESTABLISH URBAN REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE DISTRICTS
Regional Transportation and Land Use Districts
should be established in the large urban areas to
address regional, multimodal transportation
requirements, land use compatibility and other
regional impacts of development. The Districts
should be responsible for developing,
implementing and operating multimodal
transportation systems to meet regional
transportation needs. The Districts should
enable the large urban areas to: 1) improve and
maintain regionally significant transportation
systems and services; 2) ensure broad, regional
land use compatibility; and 3) address the
regional impacts of development through the
establishment of districts that are not bound to
or limited by existing county or incorporated city
boundaries.
Task Force Findings:
Some provisions in state law dealing with the
State Transportation Board are outdated and
limit the ability of growing urban and rural
communities to submit viable candidates for the
Governor’s consideration.
i-3
Following the passage of the ½ percent freeway
sales tax in Maricopa County in 1985, ADOT and
the State Transportation Board shifted more of
ADOT’s discretionary monies to make major
improvements on several key rural highways.
Major Recommendation Six:
STRENGTHEN THE ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION
BOARD
The Arizona State Transportation Board should
be increased to nine members. The members
would no longer represent specific geographic
“districts”, but would represent the State as a
whole. The following restrictions would be
imposed on appointments to the State
Transportation Board:
A. Three members should be appointed from
each county with a population greater
than one-third of the state’s population,
according to the most recent decennial
census;
B. One member should be appointed from
each county with a population greater
than 500,000, according to the most
recent decennial census, provided such
county is not included in paragraph A;
C. Five members should be appointed from
the remainder of the state not included
in paragraph A or B, but no more than
one member may be appointed from any
one county; and
D. State Transportation Board members may
not serve in elected positions.
In appointing members of the State
Transportation Board, the Governor shall
consider individuals with a wide variety of
relevant knowledge and experience, including
knowledge of roadways, mass transit services,
aviation systems, freight movement, bicycle and
pedestrian needs, and local, regional, statewide,
and tribal transportation issues.
Establish 20-Year Statewide Transportation System “Budget”
Task Force Findings:
The demands on Arizona’s transportation system
have grown and will continue to grow. Arizona’s
current transportation system cannot handle the
projected population growth and increasing
travel demand.
The average costs associated with various modes
of transportation are significant in terms of
capital and annual operation or maintenance
costs.
A thorough review of current transportation
programs and long-range transportation plans
indicates that current revenue sources will be
insufficient to meet projected population growth
and transportation demands over the next 20
years, despite additional federal and local
revenue sources becoming available in recent
years.
Typically, it takes 15 to 20 years or more to
allocate sufficient resources to complete major
widening projects (typically to four-lanes) on
some of the state’s major rural highways.
Monies in the Highway User Revenue Fund
(HURF) are constitutionally restricted principally
to roadway and bridge purposes. HURF
revenues have become less effective in fully
meeting Arizona’s growing transportation needs.
Factors, such as inflation, improved fuel
efficiency, and the increasing use of non-taxed
fuel sources, have and will continue to erode the
effective yield of Highway User revenues.
Major Recommendation Seven:
INCREASE DEDICATED TRANSPORTATION
REVENUES
Dedicated transportation revenues should be
increased gradually over the next twenty years
by approximately $20 billion dollars, in constant
year 2000 dollars, to meet the expected needs of
Arizona’s multimodal, statewide transportation
system. A series of gradual tax rate increases
should be implemented throughout the 20-year
period. In recognition of the uncertain schedule
for implementation of these recommendations,
i-4
each recommended adjustment has been
scheduled within the 20-year period.
The new transportation revenue system should
emphasize sufficient flexibility to permit the
allocation of revenues to the transportation
system improvements identified through the
performance based planning and programming
processes described above.
The funding sources for transportation need to
expand beyond the dedicated revenues of the
Highway User Revenue Fund, the largest
component of which is fuel taxes. Not only are
these monies constitutionally restricted to street,
highway and bridge purposes, the effective
revenue generating power of the fuel tax
continues to be eroded by conversions to
alternative fuels and the increasing fuel efficiency
of the general vehicle fleet.
In recognition of the need for greater flexibility in
funding all modes of transportation the
recommended revenues rely heavily on non-restricted
revenue sources.
Increase Fuel Taxes
State fuel taxes should be increased gradually
over the next twenty years. The initial increase
of $.05 per gallon should be enacted in Year 1 or
as soon as possible. An additional $0.04
increase should be imposed in Year 4 and
smaller $.02 increases should occur in Year 9
and Year 14.
Establish A Dedicated Statewide Sales Tax
A dedicated, statewide transportation sales tax
surcharge should be phased-in, beginning with a
0.25% surcharge in Year 1, or as soon possible
and an additional 0.5% surcharge is proposed in
Year 5. The timing of implementation of the
additional 0.5% surcharge should, if possible,
coincide with the expiration of the Maricopa
County Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) tax
during FY 2006.
Establish Dedicated Statewide Development
Fees For System Expansion
A dedicated, statewide development fee equal to
1 per cent of value should be enacted and
imposed on all new commercial and residential
development in the State. The revenues
generated from the fee should be used
exclusively for improvements to the state
transportation system required to meet the
increased transportation demand for moving
goods and people associated with the
development. This fee is distinct from the locally
imposed fee recommended above to deal with
specific major developments.
Identify and Establish Transportation System Funding Priorities
Task Force Findings:
State and national studies indicate that
pavement preservation programs can extend the
life of streets and highways and can avoid costly
roadway reconstruction.
Ongoing maintenance and repair of the 155-mile
Maricopa Regional Freeway System will compete
with other existing highway segments for scarce
maintenance dollars.
Major Recommendation Eight:
PRIORITIZE SYSTEM PRESERVATION
The first priority for transportation revenues
should be maintenance and preservation of
existing, used and useful system assets. Monies
should be prioritized for preservation at the long-term
optimal level. All transportation agencies
should be mandated, by law, to establish system
preservation analysis models similar to the
pavement preservation model used by ADOT for
the state highway system.
Task Force Findings:
Existing and future congestion on state and local
roadways will hinder Arizona’s economy and
threaten the quality of life for our citizens and
visitors.
i-5
National studies indicate that 50% to 60% of all
traffic congestion is attributed to incidents (e.g.,
minor accidents, stalled or abandoned vehicles
on the freeway shoulder, large debris in
roadway). These studies also indicate that
formal incident management programs and
freeway management systems are two effective
strategies for reducing congestion.
Major Recommendation Nine:
PRIORITIZE CONGESTION RELIEF AND
COMMUTER SERVICES
The next highest priority for transportation
revenues should be congestion relief, improving
commuter services and reducing delays. A
specific portion of state collected transportation
revenues (in addition to local monies) should be
dedicated to addressing existing and future
commuter needs and congestion relief in all
areas of the State.
Task Force Findings:
A variety of cost-effective, transportation system
improvements could be implemented to enhance
mobility and relieve congestion in growing urban
areas, especially in the two large metropolitan
areas.
Major Recommendation Ten:
IMPLEMENT IMMEDIATE AND OBVIOUS SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS
There are a substantial number of immediate
and obvious improvements to the State’s
transportation system that should be
immediately implemented. Most of these
improvements can be most effectively
implemented in the State’s largest urban areas,
although some have statewide applicability.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transmittal Letter Transmittal_Letter.pdf
Key Task Force Recommendations and Findings i V21_ExecSum.pdf
Section One: Task Force Vision, Goals, Finding and Recommendations
Chapter One: Background and Task Force Charge 1-1-1 V21_Ch1.pdf
Chapter Two: Task Force Goals and Vision 1-2-1 V21_Ch2.pdf
Chapter Three: Task Force Findings 1-3-1 V21_Ch3.pdf
Chapter Four: Task Force Recommendations 1-4-1 V21_Ch4.pdf
Section Two: Task Force Process, Studies and Analyses
Chapter Five: Task Force Schedule and Process 2-5-1 V21_Ch5.pdf
Chapter Six: Public Input — Phase I 2-6-1 V21_Ch6.pdf
Chapter Seven: Task Force Studies and Analyses 2-7-1 V21_Ch7.pdf
Chapter Eight: Public Education and Input — Phase II 2-8-1 V21_Ch8.pdf
Chapter Nine: Implementation Considerations 2-9-1 V21_Ch9.pdf
Appendices
Needs and Analytical Consultants’ Report to the Task Force A-1-1 V21_Ap01.pdf
Booz-Allen Hamilton
Revenue Consultant’s Report to the Task Force A-2-1 V21_Ap02.pdf
Wilbur Smith Associates
Task Force Preliminary Recommendations A-3-1 V21_Ap03.pdf
Task Force Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-4-1 V21_Ap04.pdf
Public Input Meetings Schedule A-5-1 V21_Ap05.pdf
Task Force and Committee Schedules A-6-1 V21_Ap06.pdf
Listing of Task Force and Committee Experts A-7-1 V21_Ap07.pdf
Listing of Task Force and Committee Materials A-8-1 V21_Ap08.pdf
Transportation Open House Schedule A-9-1 V21_Ap09.pdf
Transportation Open House Materials Listing A-10-1 V21_Ap10.pdf
Transportation Open House Comment Tabulations A-11-1 V21_Ap11.pdf
Task Force Newsletter Listing A-12-1 V21_Ap12.pdf
Listing of Other Public Input Received and Additional Resources A-13-1 V21_Ap13.pdf
Executive Orders 1999-2 and 2000-16 A-14-1 V21_Ap14.pdf
Chapter One:
Background and Task Force Charge
Section One:
Task Force Vision, Goals, Findings and
Recommendations
1-1-1
CHAPTER ONE: Background and Task Force Charge
Governor Jane Dee Hull established the
Transportation Vision 21 Task Force in February
1999. Executive Order 99-2, as amended by
Executive Order 2000-16, identified a well-developed,
reliable transportation system as
crucial to the growth and economic vitality of the
State of Arizona and as essential to the
enhancement of intrastate and interstate
commerce.
The Executive Order described an efficient
transportation system as “a comprehensive
network of multimodal components that work
together to provide the orderly transportation of
goods, services and people” and recognized that
the “development, funding and maintenance of
an efficient transportation system is a shared
responsibility” of all governments.
The Executive Order charged the Task Force
with “evaluating current practices, resources,
and infrastructures, and recommending and
prioritizing the goals, funding, and specific plans
that will establish a vision for transportation in
Arizona in the 21st Century”. The Task Force
was also given a variety of specific
responsibilities in the Executive Order.
Specifically the Task Force was directed to:
Identify critical, long-range transportation
needs in both rural and urban areas of this
State…;
Develop preliminary estimates of the long-term
cost of implementing a comprehensive,
multimodal, long-range transportation
system plan and compare the estimated
costs to the estimated revenues from
existing, federal, state, and local
transportation funding streams…;
Identify and recommend planning
approaches and funding strategies to be
used to establish a comprehensive, fully
integrated, multimodal system that serves
the future transportation needs of all of
Arizona…;
Study and recommend guidelines and
procedures for prioritizing Arizona’s
transportation needs and expenditures…;
Review the structures and responsibilities,
with regard to transportation planning, of
transportation agencies throughout the
State; and
Report the consensus findings and
recommendations of the Task Force” by
December 31, 2001.
The Governor appointed thirty-one Task Force
members from throughout the state. Ms Sharon
B. Megdal, Ph.D., of Tucson and Mr. Martin
Shultz of Phoenix were appointed to serve as Co-
Chairs for the Task Force.
The Task Force established three committees to
study various issues in greater detail and to
forward critical information to the full Task Force
as appropriate. The Task Force established the
Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues
Committee, the Governance Committee, and the
Planning and Programming Processes
Committee. The committee membership list is
illustrated inside the front cover. Each
committee developed, adopted, and forwarded
recommendations to the Task Force.
Definition of Needs, Resources and
Revenues Committee
Ms Barbara Ralston serves as Chair and Mr. John
Mawhinney as Vice Chair of the Definition of
Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee.
The Committee charge was as follows:
The Definition of Needs, Resources and
Revenues Committee is responsible for
identifying regionally significant long-range
needs and projects in both rural and urban
areas for the multimodal transportation
system for Arizona in the 21st Century. The
Committee is also examining the projected
transportation revenues for the entire state
of Arizona and evaluating the adequacy of
projected revenues to meet the multimodal
1-1-2
transportation needs in Arizona for the 21st
Century.
Multimodal project definitions and costs, revenue
forecasts, analysis of existing revenue sources
and a proposal of future sources to create a
reliable funding stream are areas that will
receive specific attention and focus by this
Committee.
Governance Committee
Mr. Kurt Davis serves as Chair and Ms Lisa Atkins
as Vice Chair of the Governance Committee.
The Committee charge was as follows:
The Governance Committee is responsible
for examining the structure, role,
responsibilities and interrelationship of each
of the transportation planning and delivery
entities established by state and federal law.
These entities include local government,
tribal governments as well as regional and
state transportation authorities. The
Committee is also charged with evaluating
the structure, role, responsibilities and
interrelationships of each entity as it relates
to the multimodal transportation
infrastructure.
Planning and Programming Process
Committee
Mr. Kevin Olson serves as Chair and Ms Diane
McCarthy as Vice Chair of the Planning and
Programming Committee. The Committee
charge was as follows:
The Planning and Programming Process
Committee is responsible for evaluating the
current transportation planning processes at
the local, regional and statewide levels for
all transportation types and then develop a
foundation for preparing a long-range
(minimum of 20 years) multimodal
transportation plan for the state of Arizona.
This Committee is relying, at least in part,
on presentations from the local, regional,
and state transportation planning and
delivery agencies regarding their areas of
responsibility. The Committee is responsible
for evaluating the processes used in
preparation and application of transportation
planning.
The Committee is also charged with
evaluating project selection, project
prioritization, project development,
effectiveness of the public input process,
and current multimodal transportation
planning documents. They are also
examining whether there are deficiencies
within the current process and
recommending improvements and
modifications to the existing process.
The Task Force worked to identify critical, long-range
transportation needs in Arizona’s rural and
urban areas and to develop preliminary
estimates of the cost to implement a
comprehensive, multimodal, long-range
transportation system plan. These estimated
costs were then compared to the estimated
revenues from existing federal, state and local
transportation funding streams.
The Task Force also worked to identify and
recommend planning approaches and funding
strategies to be used to establish a
comprehensive, fully integrated, multimodal
system to meet the future transportation needs
of all of Arizona. It considered all aspects of
transportation, including but not limited to,
public roadways, highways, bus service,
passenger rail, aviation, bicycle, pedestrian and
travel reduction programs. The Task Force’s
strategies and recommendations address rural
and urban transportation issues, as well as
freight concerns throughout the State.
The Task Force studied and has developed
recommendations for prioritizing Arizona’s
transportation needs and expenditures in
relationship to the responsibilities of state,
county, city and tribal governments, as well as
state, regional, and local planning agencies. The
Task Force reviewed the transportation planning
structure and responsibilities of the State
Transportation Board, the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT), local governments
throughout the State, and local planning
agencies.
1-1-3
The Task Force submitted an Interim Report to
the Governor on December 15, 1999. Both the
Interim Report and this report contain consensus
findings and recommendations of the Task
Force. As directed in the Executive Order, this
report will be made available to Arizona’s
Congressional delegation, the members of the
Arizona State Legislature, state, county, local,
and tribal transportation departments, the
State’s universities and the private sector
(including community and citizen groups).
Information concerning the Task Force may be
obtained at the Task Force office within ADOT at
206 S. 17th Avenue, 310B, Phoenix, Arizona
85007, at the Task Force website,
http://www.dot.state.az.us/vision21, or by e-mail
at vision21@dot.state.az.us.
Chapter Two:
Task Force Goals and Vision
Section One:
Task Force Vision, Goals, Findings and
Recommendations
1-2-1
CHAPTER TWO: Task Force Goals and Vision
Task Force Retreat and Goal
Development Process
Task Force members met for two days in Casa
Grande during March 2000 to discuss their
individual and collective vision of Arizona’s
transportation system and their goals for the
Task Force.
The Task Force initially discussed the “best” and
“worst” aspects of Arizona’s transportation
system and then identified possible changes to
the system that might be considered in the
course of the Task Force’s work.
The members met in their assigned committees
to discuss and identify their key issues and
subjects. Each committee identified a series of
ideas, issues and proposals, which were then
grouped into three ranking categories. The
results of these committee deliberations were
reported to the Task Force at large and those
items included in the highest priority category
were blended into a draft list of Task Force
transportation system goals. The overall system
goals were then individually discussed, modified
and accepted by the members present. The
Task Force identified its major goals for Arizona’s
transportation system, along with a preamble
that appears below.
Identified Overall Transportation
System Goals
Arizona must have an efficient, multimodal
transportation system that contributes to
the overall quality of life of its citizens and
serves the future transportation needs of
the entire state. The transportation system
should address the following goals identified
by the Governor’s Vision 21 Transportation
Task Force.
The principal long-range expectations for
Arizona’s Transportation System are
mobility, connectivity, economic vitality,
reliability and system preservation.
The roles and responsibilities of all
participants in the system (including state
government, local governments, tribal
governments and regional planning
entities) should be determined, integrated
and better coordinated. Planning,
programming, and reporting processes
must be integrated to ensure a sustainable
and reliable system.
All federally funded state and local
transportation programs should be
incorporated into the transportation
planning, programming and reporting
processes.
The governance of the system must
establish clear accountability and
strengthen public confidence in the
system. Planning, funding (including
taxation), implementation and
performance monitoring responsibilities
should be linked to achieve this goal.
The planning and programming processes
should facilitate integration of all modes.
These processes should optimize each
mode’s strengths and minimize inter-modal
conflicts.
Clear responsibility and authority for the
transportation system should be
established to encourage greater
coordination and consistency. These
responsibilities and authorities should be
consistent with any recommended
governance structure.
Consistent, minimum statewide standards
for quality and performance should be
established. Based on these standards,
system performance should be measured
and reported.
1-2-2
The overall system must have consistent,
reliable, adequate, dedicated, but flexible,
funding. All available sources, including
federal funds, financing innovations,
private sources and public-private
partnerships, should be explored to
maximize funding for the system.
Dedicated transportation taxing authority
should be established or expanded.
Emphasis must be placed on operation and
maintenance of system assets to protect
the investment and to improve overall
utilization of the system.
Comprehensive financial management
processes (including revenue forecasting
techniques and expenditure management
techniques) should be expanded to all
aspects of the system.
In order to be effective, land use plans
must consider state and regional
transportation plans, especially with
respect to future transportation corridors.
In turn, state and regional transportation
plans should recognize local land use
plans. The coordination and consideration
of the overlaying transportation system
plans and land use plans by all affected
jurisdictions will increase the usefulness
and benefits of those plans and will help
avoid unintended conflicts in the future.
Chapter Three:
Task Force Findings
Section One:
Task Force Vision, Goals, Findings and
Recommendations
1-3-1
Projected Population and Vehicle Travel Growth
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
1990 1995 2000 2015 2020 Population,
Registered
Vehicles and
Licensed Drivers
20,000,000
80,000,000
140,000,000
200,000,000
Daily Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Population Registered Vehicles Licensed Drivers DVMT
CHAPTER THREE: Task Force Findings
Through the course work of the Task Force
and its three committees, hundreds of
documents and information sources
pertaining to transportation within Arizona
and elsewhere have been collected,
reviewed, presented, and discussed. This
chapter summarizes some of the
information and materials from some of
those sources.
Transportation System Demands
Roads and Highways
The demands on Arizona’s transportation
system have grown and will continue to
grow. Arizona’s current transportation
system cannot handle the projected
population growth and increasing travel
demand.
The State of Arizona has experienced
tremendous population growth and economic
development over the past half century. The
State has grown from 750,000 people in 1950
to over five million in 2000. Our state’s
population is expected to grow by 48% over
the next 20 years. By 2020 Arizona’s
population is expected to exceed 7.4 million
people.1 Exhibit A illustrates the projected
population growth of Arizona’s counties, cities,
and towns from 1990 through 2020.
In 1975, there were 2.1 million people living in
Arizona, 1.5 million registered vehicles, and 1
million licensed drivers. In 1985, Arizona’s
population had reached 3.3 million, there were
2.5 million registered vehicles, and 2 million
licensed drivers. In 1996, Arizona’s population
had grown to 4.2 million people, there were 3.5
million registered vehicles, and 3 million licensed
drivers. Today, there are an estimated 5.3
million people residing in our State, over 4.6
million registered cars, and 3.6 million licensed
drivers. Based on these historical data, it is
estimated that there will be 6.4 million vehicles
registered in the State by 2020 and there will be
over 5 million licensed drivers.1, 2
Currently, the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
per day in Arizona is approximately 129 million
miles. Motorists in the metropolitan Phoenix
area are driving approximately 60 million miles
per weekday. This number is expected to grow
to 95 million miles per weekday by 2020. In
the metropolitan Tucson area, motorists are
driving approximately 18 million miles per
weekday. Daily VMT in the metropolitan
Tucson area is expected to grow to 27 million
miles per weekday by 2020. The following
graph illustrates actual and projected growth in
population, vehicle registrations, daily VMT and
licensed drivers in Arizona from 1990 to 2020.
Figure 1-3-1
Source: Population Data: Arizona Department of Economic Security
DVMT Data: Arizona Department of Transportation, Booz-Allen analysis, 1998 Transportation Factbook, ADOT
1-3-2
Existing and future congestion on state and
local roadways will hinder Arizona’s
economy and threaten the quality of life for
our citizens and visitors.
Congestion on our major state highways is
increasing toward unacceptable levels of
service. For example, average daily traffic
(ADT) volumes along some sections of
Interstate 10 between Phoenix and Tucson
have increased dramatically in recent years and
will reach unacceptable levels by 2006. Traffic
volumes along this stretch of interstate are
expected to double over the next 20 years.6
Exhibit B illustrates the level of congestion that
currently exists on Arizona’s major highways.
Congestion in the metropolitan Phoenix area will
reach severe levels, especially during peak
commuter hours, without additional investment
in the system. In 1995, the average speed
during the evening peak hours was 30 miles per
hour. This will drop drastically to 16 miles per
hour without significant transportation system
improvements, which require an increase in
funding. The slower average speed will result in
a 1,000% increase in total hours of delay
during the evening rush hour.7 Exhibit C
contains a map indicating the heavily congested
intersections in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
Within the metropolitan Tucson area, numerous
major arterial streets have reached
unacceptable congestion levels during the
evening peak hours. The following are some of
Tucson’s most congested corridors:I-10,
Houghton Road, Kolb Road, Campbell Avenue,
Grant Road, River Road, Oracle Road, Ina
Road/Sunrise Drive, Cortaro Road, and La
Cholla Boulevard.8 Exhibit D contains a map
indicating the heavily congested intersections in
the Tucson metropolitan area. Without
additional investment, congestion in the area
will reach catastrophic levels. Vehicle trips per
day are expected to reach 3.6 million in 2020,
compared to 2.1 million vehicle trips per day in
1995. Over the next 20 years, congested
conditions are expected to exist on 70% of
metropolitan Tucson’s roadways.8
A recent study by the Texas Transportation
Institute (TTI) indicated that congestion in 68
metropolitan areas across the county in 1999
resulted in a $78 billion loss in job productivity,
4.5 billion hours of delay and 6.8 billion gallons
of wasted fuel.5
The TTI study found that on average motorists
in the Phoenix area spent 31 hours idling in
traffic in 1999 and the average Tucson area
motorist spent up to 23 hours in 1999 in traffic
delays. The study found that congestion in the
Phoenix area cost $540 per capita when
considering lost time and increased gas
expense. The study found that congestion in
the Tucson area cost $395 per capita.5
In the TTI study, the Phoenix metropolitan area
was ranked 31st in annual congestion costs per
capita, even though this region was ranked as
the 13th largest metropolitan area evaluated by
the study.
The TTI study found that areas with significant
freeway expansion (e.g. the Maricopa Regional
Freeway System) experienced slower growth in
congestion than metropolitan regions that did
not undertake substantial roadway expansion
programs.
Recent public opinion polls throughout the State
indicate that growing traffic congestion is one
of the major concerns for citizens and that
finding ways to ease congestion and reduce
travel time is a top priority. Input from the
Task Force’s statewide telephone survey,
Modified Focus Groups, and the public
Transportation Open Houses throughout the
state reinforced the results from recent public
opinion polls on transportation.
A recent Tucson poll indicated that 40% of
respondents indicated that increasing the ease
and speed of travel is of foremost importance
and 55% of the respondents stated that
transportation is not adequately funded.
A recent KAET poll indicated that 67% of
Arizona residents believe that congestion is a
serious problem that needs to be reduced.
Traffic congestion is a growing problem
throughout Arizona. Exhibit E lists congested
intersections in the state that should be
improved with existing and future
transportation revenues.3
1-3-3
Even without the full implementation of the
North American Free Trade Agreement,
Arizona’s three major ports of entry (Nogales,
Douglas and San Luis) have experienced a 10%
growth in the number of commercial vehicles
crossing each year.9
Commercial vehicle traffic (vehicles weighing
more than 26,000 pounds) on key interstate
highways in Arizona has more than doubled
over the decade and this trend is expected to
continue. The following table illustrates this
trend:
Table 1-3-1
Annual Commercial Vehicle Counts
(Trucks > 26,000 Gross Vehicle Weight)
I-8 I-10 I-17 I-19 I-40
1990 39,989 948,200 307,200 31,400 313,300
1995 39,234 1,567,100 486,400 38,600 364,000
2000 61,900 2,002,700 598,800 80,200 610,700
Source: ADOT Transportation Planning Division
New engine technology, cleaner fuels, and
pending federal standards should greatly
reduce vehicle emission levels in the near
future, although air quality will remain an
important consideration in developing
transportation plans.
Automobile emissions have dropped
dramatically since the 1960s and emissions will
continue to decline in the years ahead.
The following table illustrates the significant
improvements in auto emissions standards,
since 1960.
Table 1-3-2
Auto Emission Standards
Grams of Emission per Mile Traveled
Model Year Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxide
1960 10.600 84.000 4.100
1970 4.100 34.000 5.000
1975 1.500 15.000 3.100
1980 0.410 7.000 2.000
1981 0.410 3.400 1.000
1983 0.410 3.400 1.000
1994 (Tier 1) 0.310 4.200 0.600
2004 (Tier 2) 0.125 4.200 0.200
Source: 1997 Arizona Transportation Research Center Study
1-3-4
Sulfur is the primary element that causes the
emission of black soot from diesel engines. The
Environmental Protection’s Agency (EPA) has
proposed new rules to cut sulfur content in
diesel fuel by 95% effective June 2006.
Beginning in 2007, diesel engine makers will
have three years to produce engines that cut
the emission of nitrogen oxide by 97% and
particulate matter by 90%.
Several transit buses, powered by hydrogen fuel
cells (that emit only water vapor) are being
tested and used in British Columbia, Canada.
Transit officials believe that these hydrogen-powered
buses will be utilized more by
municipalities throughout the county over the
next 10 years as this new technology becomes
more affordable.21
General Motors is test driving a hydrogen-powered
minivan at its test facility in Gilbert,
Arizona. This zero emissions vehicle utilizes
fuel cell technology to convert hydrogen into
electricity. Test results indicate that the
minivan’s performance and fuel economy is
similar to a gasoline-powered van. The
hydrogen-powered minivan emits only water
vapor. General Motors anticipates that these
hydrogen-powered vehicles will be available to
the public in the next 10 years (General Motors
Desert Proving Ground).
“Smart car” technology should enhance
traffic safety and increase roadway
capacity over the next 20 years.
Several U.S. auto manufacturers are developing
and testing intelligent vehicles that can drive
themselves using on-board computers, radar
technology and sensors that follow magnets
embedded in a roadway. These “smart cars”
are being sold and operated in some areas of
Denmark and Japan.
Within the next few years, collision warning and
crash avoidance systems will be standard
equipment or optional features in new cars.
These systems are an extension of cruise
control systems that have been common in
most vehicles for many years. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has
estimated that over 500,000 crashes could be
avoided annually and close to 10,000 lives
saved, with the full deployment of these
systems. Additionally, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration has set a goal of a 50%
reduction in fatalities from heavy truck crashes
through the use of this intelligent vehicle
technology.25
ADOT is currently testing new snowplows that
are guided by computer technology that reads
magnets embedded in the roadway. Full
deployment of this technology will significantly
reduce the time to clear snow on state
highways.11
Transit
Public transit serves several different
functions in Arizona. It provides mobility
to persons without access to an automobile
and to those who do not drive. It provides
important links between rural communities
and metropolitan areas. In general, over
the last five years, transit ridership in the
Phoenix Metropolitan area has increased
by 7%; decreased by 10% in the Tucson
Metropolitan area; and increased slightly in
other areas of the State.
Private intercity bus service operates along the
major travel corridors in Arizona. Passenger
service is available in 83 communities and
connects these cities with other urbanized areas
in Arizona and other states.2 Exhibit F shows
the major intercity bus corridors in Arizona and
the average number of daily round trips.2
The major east-west interstate routes through
Arizona -- I-40 in the north and I-10 and I-8 in
the south -- resulted in frequent service along
these corridors. Travel between California and
Texas, the two most populous states, has a
greater influence on the levels of service on
these routes more than demand within
Arizona.2
Routes operating between California and Texas
run primarily on I-10, while those serving San
Diego split off to I-8. Service between
Albuquerque, New Mexico and Las Vegas,
Nevada operates on I-40.
Demand for north-south service from Mexico
supports a high level of service on the I-19/I-10
corridor, particularly from Nogales to Phoenix.2
1-3-5
Statewide Transportation for the
Elderly and Disabled – Section 5310
Program
The Section 5310 Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) program provides assistance in meeting
the transportation needs of elderly persons and
persons with disabilities where public
transportation services are unavailable or
insufficient.2 This program provides capital
assistance for transportation to private non-profit
organizations, Indian tribes and some
public agencies statewide. The program is
administered by ADOT and coordinated at the
regional level by the Councils of Governments
and Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Exhibit G illustrates the Section 5310 service
locations within Arizona.2 The following table
shows various statistics of the Section 5310
Program.
Table 1-3-3
Section 5310 Program Statistics
1996 2000 % of Difference
Vehicles 87 93 + 7%
Vehicle miles 880,280 972,075 +10%
Passenger trips 341,340 377,100 +10%
Total cost $2,321,999 $2,788,000 +12%
Cost per vehicle $26,689 $29,978 +12%
Cost per passenger trip $6.80 $7.39 +9%
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Group, Transit Team
Transportation for Rural and Small
Urban Areas – Section 5311 Program
The FTA’s Section 5311 program provides
capital, administrative and operating assistance
for public transportation programs in rural and
small urban areas (under 50,000 population).2
This program is administered by ADOT.
Councils of Governments review and comment
on applications received for projects in their
planning areas. Exhibit G also illustrates the
Section 5311 service locations.2 The following
table shows various statistics of the Section
5311 Program:
Table 1-3-4
Section 5311 Program Statistics
1996 2000 % of Difference
Passenger trips 490,516 517,861 +6%
Passenger (project) miles 1,647,196 1,727,441 +5%
Total cost $2,845,790 $3,537,836 +24%
Farebox recovery ratio 0.22 0.22 0%
Cost/passenger trip $5.80 $8.30 +43%
Fare/passenger trip $1.14 $1.88 +65%
Cost/project mile $1.72 $2.56 +49%
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Group, Transit Team
1-3-6
Phoenix Metropolitan Area Transit
Services
The Regional Public Transportation Authority
(RPTA) provides a structure to enable the
various cities in Maricopa County to operate a
coordinated public transit system. Phoenix,
Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Chandler, Peoria,
Gilbert, Glendale, Avondale, El Mirage and
Maricopa County participate in RPTA.2
Fixed route and demand response transit
services funded by these jurisdictions and
regional services funded through RPTA operate
as Valley Metro.2 The following table shows
various statistics of the Valley Metro transit
system.
Table 1-3-5
RPTA Transit Statistics
1996 2000 Difference
Size of fleet 468 buses 589 buses +26%
Average vehicle age 9.48 years 6.03 years -36%
System capacity 16,833 seats 21,358 seats +26%
Passengers 35,028,406 37,496,804 + 7%
Passengers per vehicle hour 39.40 29.55 -25%
Passengers per vehicle mile 2.56 2.08 -19%
Operating cost per passenger $1.51 $1.99 +32%
Operating cost per vehicle mile $3.86 $4.14 + 7%
Revenue per passenger $0.55 $0.61 +11%
Farebox recovery ratio 36.4 30.8 -15%
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, 1997 Transit Plan and Regional Public Transportation Authority
Tucson Metropolitan Area Transit
Service
The City of Tucson and Pima County fund most
transit services in the Tucson metropolitan
area.2
The City of Tucson oversees the operation of
Sun Tran which services Tucson, South Tucson,
the Town of Oro Valley and the unincorporated
portions of Pima County. Pima County operates
specialized services in he unincorporated
areas.2
Intergovernmental agreements are in place to
provide service outside city limits. Pima County
operates specialized services in the
unincorporated county area, regional services
from Marana to Tucson, Ajo to Tucson, and
demand response services in Ajo.2
The following table shows various statistics of
the Tucson Sun Tran transit system.
1-3-7
Table 1-3-6
Sun Tran Transit Statistics
1996 2000 Difference
Passengers 16,170,758 14,513,188 -10%
Miles of service 7,788,943 7,771,459 - 2%
Farebox revenue $6,030,214 $7,267,371 +21%
Operating costs $22,498,947 $30,804,320 +37%
Passengers per vehicle mile 2.08 1.87 -10%
Operating cost per passenger $1.39 $2.12 +53%
Operation subsidy per passenger $1.02 $1.62 +59%
Farebox recovery ratio 26.8 23.6 -12%
Source: Tucson Sun Tran
Table 1-3-7
Flagstaff Transit Statistics
FY 2002 FY 2005 % Difference
Size of Fleet 6 16 +167%
Passengers 1 2 +233%
Passengers/Vehicle Hour 150,000 500,000 +36%
Operating Cost/Passenger 4.22 3.73 -12%
Operating Cost/Mile 3.30 3.30 0%
Revenue Per Passenger .75 .75 0%
Farebox Recovery Ratio 17% 20% 18%
Source: City of Flagstaff
Flagstaff Metropolitan Area Transit
System, Mountain Line
Mountain Line, unlike other systems in the
State, is a new transit service, which began in
October 2001. The City of Flagstaff passed a
transit tax in May 2000 and the above plan
(Table 1-3-7) is being implemented over the
next four years.
Local Transit Assistance Fund II
(LTAF II)
The state’s transit assistance program
(LTAF II) has supported essential
transportation service in rural communities
throughout the state.
The Local Transportation Assistance Fund II
(LTAF II) was created by state legislation in
1998. LTAF II was originally funded with federal
Surface Transportation Program monies
received by ADOT. In 2000, use was restricted
to transit, unless a jurisdiction’s allocation is
less than $2,500 per year.
Today, LTAF II is funded through State General
Fund appropriations and a portion of PowerBall
lottery proceeds. The program is capped at
$18 million annually, however, only $7.5 million
was appropriated by the Arizona Legislature for
FY 2002.13 Exhibit H summarizes the maximum
amount each county or municipality could
receive in FY 2000 under the $18 million cap.
The program is scheduled to sunset on October
1, 2003, with the expiration of the current
Federal Transportation Reauthorization Act
(TEA-21).
1-3-8
In the beginning, some jurisdictions were
hesitant to start up new transit service or
services for special needs populations (para-transit
service) with their LTAF II allocations
because of the uncertainty surrounding future
LTAF II funding (legislative appropriation and
lottery sales). Recently, many jurisdictions
have pooled their LTAF II allocations to
establish new transit routes or para-transit
service.3
ADOT has worked with rural communities to
leverage their LTAF II allocations with federal
Section 5310 (Elderly and Persons with
Disabilities) and Section 5311 (Rural Public
Transportation) programs. The State
Transportation Board allocated $5 million in FY
2000 for jurisdictions that use 100% of LTAF II
for transit purposes.3
The following are some examples of how
different municipalities have pooled their LTAF
II allocations to operate transit and para-transit
services3:
Phoenix Metropolitan Area: Avondale,
Goodyear, Litchfield Park, and Tolleson have
established the Southwest Transit and Regional
Transportation (START) route. Prior to START,
residents in the southwest part of the Phoenix
metropolitan region did not have local transit
service. START provides service to Estrella
Mountain Community College, Desert Sky
Mall,and the Desert Sky Park & Ride Lot, where
commuters can access express bus service.
Average monthly ridership has grown from 95
daily passengers in the first year to 165 in
2001. In FY 2000, $194,584 in LTAF II
revenues were used to support START. In the
past, federal appropriations of $400,000 have
also supported this transit service.
Southeastern Arizona: Huachuca City and
Tombstone use their LTAF II monies to partner
with the Sierra Vista Transit System. This
partnership enables senior citizens in
Tombstone and Huachuca City to travel to
Sierra Vista two days a week.
Northeastern Arizona: Show Low, Pinetop-
Lakeside, and Navajo County use their LTAF II
allocation to fund the Four Seasons Connection
Transit System. The System has experienced
significant growth in ridership, especially
among disabled and wheelchair riders.
Central Yavapai Region: Prescott, Prescott
Valley, Chino Valley, and Yavapai County have
combined their LTAF II allocations to fund a
voucher transit system. This system is
administered by the Northern Arizona Council
Of Governments (NACOG) and provides
transportation to the elderly, disabled, low
income and youth populations. The system
enables clients to select from an approved list
of private sector providers and redeem
vouchers for qualified trip purposes such as:
employment, job search, medical visits, social
service agency visits, education, and basic
transportation needs. From April through July
2001, 13,514 trips were provided by this
voucher transit system.
Light Rail Transit Service
Maricopa County Region
The Phoenix 2000 transit tax is expected to
provide $1.654 billion over a 20-year period to
help fund the construction and operation of a
light rail transit system
In October 2001, the Federal Transit
Administration approved the first $1.1 billion
project that will link Central Phoenix to Tempe
and Mesa. The first 20.3-mile segment is due
to be completed in 2006. By 2020, estimated
ridership on this initial segment is expected to
be 48,000 passengers per day. The map on
the following page illustrates the light rail
corridor.
The recently approved Glendale transportation
tax is expected to generate approximately $170
million for the development of a light rail transit
system that links with the Phoenix system near
Chris Town Mall (at approximately 15th Avenue
and Bethany Home Road in Phoenix).
Other area cities, including Scottsdale, Tempe,
and Chandler are evaluating extending the
proposed light rail system to their communities.
Scottsdale and Tempe have funded a $750,000
study on a possible north-south link and
Chandler is conducting a $240,000 feasibility
study.
1-3-9
Tucson Region
In 1993, an historic trolley system was
reactivated providing transit service between
the University of Arizona and the Fourth Avenue
Business District. The 1.1mile long trolley
system currently operates only on Fridays,
Saturdays and Sundays along with school
charters. The trolley system and currently
carries an average of 20-25,000 riders each
year.
According to the Old Pueblo Trolley (OPT), the
non-profit organization that operates the
system, there is a desire to provide full-time
service (seven days a week, 18 hours per day).
Current plans will expand the track from Fourth
Avenue along Congress Street to the Tucson
Convention Center. The capital cost for this
expansion is approximately $5 million for rail
infrastructure and $3 million for 12 new or
restored trolleys. The operational cost of this
expanded service is $600,000 per year.
An organization known as Tucsonans for
Sensible Transportation (TST) is advocating for
the construction of a 13 mile light rail transit
system be included as part of a potential
Tucson transportation tax election. TST
estimates that the capital cost of this system to
be $35 million per mile for a total of $455
million with federal funding paying for 60% of
the capital costs. The estimated annual
operational costs are $4 million. The estimated
daily ridership of the system is expected to be
30,000 per day.14
Aviation
Air passenger service is expected to
increase dramatically in the two large
metropolitan areas over the next 20 years.
Air cargo service and general aviation are
expected to increase throughout Arizona
over the next 20 years.
Over the next 20 years, total passenger arrivals
and departures on commercial aircraft flying
into and from Sky Harbor International and
Tucson International airports are expected to
increase 79% to a combined total of nearly 36
million passengers, annually.15
1-3-10
Over the past five years, the number of
general aviation aircraft based within Arizona
has increased by 9.7%. This sustained growth
in general aviation usage is expected to
continue with an estimated increase of more
than 30% in total-based aircraft over the next
20 years.15
The tonnage of cargo passing through Sky
Harbor International Airport Air increases each
year. In 1996, approximately 297,000 tons of
cargo went through this facility. In 2005, about
600,000 tons of air cargo are expected to be
handled at Sky Harbor and over 1,000,000 tons
of air cargo are expected in 2015.16
While there are a number of unique factors
affecting the growth of air cargo at Tucson
International Airport (e.g. trade activity with
Mexico), Tucson Airport officials anticipate that
air cargo tonnage will more than double by
2020. Approximately 31,000 tons of air cargo
went through this facility in 2000 and the
amount of tonnage projected for 2020 is over
75,000 tons.17
The 1999 Arizona Small Community Economic
Development and Transportation Study
(ASCET) indicated that expanding runway
lengths, installing advanced air-to-ground
communication systems and constructing other
supporting infrastructure such as refrigerated
hangers would enhance air cargo service to
communities throughout Arizona, including,
Safford, Kingman, Casa Grande and Yuma.1
Freight Rail
Transportation of manufactured goods and
raw materials via freight rail will increase
substantially over the next 20 years.
Currently, between 60 and 70 trains per day
move freight along the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe main line in northern Arizona. Rail
freight movement along the Union Pacific main
line in southern Arizona is in the range of 40 to
50 trains each day. In the next five to ten
years, daily train movements along both of
these mainline corridors are expected to
increase by 15 to 20%. 3
ADOT, state and regional studies indicate that
traffic congestion is a growing problem at
several key at-grade roadway/railroad
crossings, especially in Flagstaff and Pima
County. There are a number of rail crossing
sites that are candidates for grade separation
improvements. In the Flagstaff region, Lone
Tree Road/Elden Street, Enterprise Road, and
4th Street. In the Tucson Region: Tangerine
Road, Cortaro Farms Road, Ina Road, Prince,
6th Street, Ruthrauff, Craycroft/Wilmot Road,
Kolb Road, and Houghton Road. In the Phoenix
region, there are eight grade separated
interchanges scheduled for construction along
Grand Avenue over the next seven years. 3
The City of Nogales also has a very acute
railroad problem. Since 1994, the number of
northbound rail cars passing through downtown
Nogales each year has more than doubled. In
2000, 48,305 rail cars passed through Nogales.
Some trains are as long as 7,500 feet, which
blocks up to 3 street intersections at one time.19
Travel Reduction Strategies
Commuter travel in the two large
metropolitan areas is a small percentage of
total VMT and total daily trips. Commuter
travel is defined as the daily trip an
employee makes from his or her residence
to their primary place of employment.
According to the MAG model, commuter trips
represent only 20% of total daily trips and only
33% of the total daily VMT in the Maricopa
County region.
According to the PAG model, commuter trips
represent only 19% of total daily trips and only
19% of total daily VMT in the Pima County
region. The PAG model indicates that these
percentages of commuter travel to total travel
are not expected to change much over the next
25 years.
Formal travel reduction programs in the
Maricopa County Pima County regions have
existed since the 1980s. Research indicates
that greater utilization of some travel
reduction strategies can reduce regional
Vehicle Miles of Travel and provide minor
air quality improvements.
1-3-11
Travel Reduction Programs - General
According to the 2000 census, 1.6 million of the
2.2 million workers in Arizona (older than 16)
commute to work by themselves in trucks, vans
or cars; nearly 326,000 carpool; and 47,000 use
public transportation including taxis. About
47,000 walk to work and 78,000 work out of
their houses.20,21
In 2000, 248 employer sites and 110,292
employees were included with the Pima County
Regional Travel Reduction Program. In 2000,
about 31.62% of these employees participated
in some aspect of a travel reduction program.22
In 2000, 1,200 employers with 2,400 employer
sites were included within the Maricopa County
Regional Travel Reduction Program. These
companies employ over 600,000 workers. In
2000, only 33% of the participating major
employer sites met their travel reduction
goals.23
State Bus Card Subsidy Program
Since 1994, the State of Arizona has provided a
bus pass subsidy for state employees within the
Phoenix and Tucson regions. The subsidy has
ranged between 50% and 100% of the rider’s
cost and is currently 65%. The subsidy is
available for both public and private mass
transit operations under contract with the state.
Currently, only one private firm is participating
in this program. The following table
summarizes key information about this State
program.2
Table 1-3-8
Travel Reduction Subsidy Information FY 2000-2001
Average Monthly Ridership Average Monthly Subsidy
Bus Card Plus Subsidies
(Valley Metro) 2,040 $29,400
Bus Subsidies (Sun Tran) 58 $1,050
Private Bus Subsidies 17 $260
Vanpool Subsidies 278 $5,500
Source: State of Arizona Travel Reduction Office
The Federal Commuter Choice Program
provides employers with a tax credit of up to
$65 for each employee that utilizes transit or a
vanpool program. Utilization of the program
has been limited because the tax credits are
minimal and the employer’s administrative time
requirements are substantial .22
Dial-a-Ride or Jitney Service
A recent survey indicates that 23% of Dial-a-
Ride customers in the Phoenix metropolitan
areas waited for more than two hours for a ride
at least once in the prior six months.
Nevertheless, this para-transit service is heavily
utilized, especially in the Phoenix metropolitan
area. In this region, more than 660,000
persons used Dial-a-Ride in the Phoenix
metropolitan area in FY 2000.21
Currently, there is no general Dial-a-Ride
program in the metropolitan Tucson area,
however, there is a service know as “Van Tran”
which provides transportation service to Tucson
residents for certain eligible purposes. In 2000,
Van Tran provided approximately 310,000 trips
in the Tucson region.22
According to the Yuma Metropolitan Planning
Organization, Dial-a-Ride in the Yuma region
turns away an average of 125 general transit
passengers per day.25
1-3-12
Ridesharing
Recent surveys indicate that approximately 15%
of employees participate in a rideshare program
at least once a week in the Phoenix region and
16% of employees rideshare at least once each
week in the Tucson region. According to recent
U.S. Census Bureau data, Arizona ranks 2nd in
the U.S. for carpooling.21,22
Currently, 22% or 298,000 commuters carpool
one or more days each week, with the average
for these individuals being 3.1 days per week in
the metropolitan Phoenix area. A 10% increase
in rideshare participation (at least once each
week) would reduce commuter VMT by 230,200
miles per day and 58.7 million miles per year.
Carpool commuters in the region save 2.3
million miles per day or 83,000 pounds of
pollution per day.21
Telecommuting
Data from the 1990 census indicates that there
were approximately 600,000 commuters in
Phoenix and 100,000 commuters in Tucson,
whose jobs are conducive to telecommuting,21,22
A 1999 survey indicated that 66% of Phoenix
area business owners feel there is potential for
establishing a telecommuting program among
their employees.21
According to RPTA surveys, about 135,000
persons currently telecommute or work at home
one day or more per week. (This figure
excludes home-based and self-employed
workers). These employees telecommute on
average 2.7 days each week. This represents a
doubling of employee participation in
telecommuting since 1996.21 A 1997 study
indicated that if 25% of eligible employees
telecommuted one day a week, commuter
weekday VMT would be reduced by 372,600
miles in the Phoenix region and 59,940 miles in
the Tucson region.4 However, this is less than
a 2/10ths of 1% reduction in VMT.
Seventy-one state agencies located in Maricopa
County have reported that over 15% of their
employees telecommute one or more days per
week.24
The Pima County 2000 Trip Reduction Program
survey indicates a 195% increase in
telecommuting over 1999 data, with 3,906
participating employees.22
Flex-time and Compressed Workweek
Programs
Recent market research conducted for RPTA
indicates that 122,000 employees in the
Phoenix region participate in a compressed
workweek program, where the number of hours
per day is increased to reduce the number of
work days each week (e.g. four ten hour days
rather than five eight hour days). It is
estimated that 20,898 employees currently
participate in one of these alternative work
schedule programs in the Tucson region.21,22
According to RPTA, a 10% increase in utilization
of flex-time or a compressed workweek
schedule would reduce commuter VMT by
81,500 miles per weekday or 407,000 per
workweek in the Phoenix region. A 10%
increase in this travel reduction strategy in the
Tucson region would reduce commuter VMT by
26,000 miles per week.21,22
Proximate Commuting
A 1997 study conducted by the Arizona
Transportation Research Center indicated that
about 40% of commuters in the Phoenix region
work for multi-site employers and 60% of these
multi-site employees do not work at the site
nearest their home. The study indicated that
transferring 10% of these eligible employees to
a work location nearer their home would reduce
their daily VMT by 65% or a total estimated
commuter VMT reduction of 359,000 miles.4
The 1997 study also indicated that if
approximately 4,200 eligible employees
participated in a “proximate commuting”
program, regional weekday commuter VMT
would be reduced by 57,000 miles.4
Bicycling or Walking
There are approximately 31,000 miles of paved
roads available for bicycling statewide. On the
State Highway System there are approximately
1-3-13
6,000 miles of roadway with shoulders available
for bicycling. About 1,000 of these miles are
Interstate routes (excluding 154 miles of
Interstate where bicycling is prohibited).
Approximately 2,800 miles (47%) of the State
Highway System are designated as more
suitable for bicycling and the remaining 3,200
miles (53%) are rated as less suitable for
bicycling.2
The Tucson region has 425 miles of signed bike
routes, six miles of separated bike lanes, 50
miles of urban shared use paths and 7.5 miles
of bus shared use lanes for a total of 488.5
miles of bikeways, according to PAG.
In Arizona, the majority of bicycling takes place
in the urban areas of Phoenix, Tucson,
Flagstaff, Prescott and Yuma. The table below
indicates the current number of bikeway miles
in each of these regions.
Maricopa County travel reduction surveys of
major employers indicate that 10,797
employees ride their bikes to work at least once
each week. Surveys by the MAG Regional
Bicycle Task Force indicate that as many as
45,000 persons commute to work via bicycle.
On average, these persons bicycle to work 3.3
days per week. These surveys also indicate
that 67,000 persons walk to work one or more
days per week. They walk to work an average
of 3.5 days per week.21,22
RPTA estimates that a 10% increase in bicycle
commuting by eligible employees in the Phoenix
metropolitan area would reduce commuter VMT
by 28,900 miles per day.21
Surveys in the Tucson area indicate that 2,561
employees used a bike to commute to work at
least once each week in 2000. This is a 4%
decrease over the previous year. These 2000
surveys indicate that 2,140 employees walk to
work. This represents a 6% increase over the
previous year.22
A 10% increase in bicycle commuting by eligible
employees in the Tucson region would reduce
commuter VMT by 1,275 miles per week.2
Table 1-3-9
Bikeway Miles
Region On Street Bikeways Urban and Suburban Off Road
Phoenix 1034.15 miles 310.41 miles
Tucson 438.5 miles 50 miles
Flagstaff 25 miles 22 miles
Prescott Data unavailable Data unavailable
Yuma Data unavailable Data unavailable
Transportation System Priorities
Pavement Preservation
State and national studies indicate that
pavement preservation programs can
extend the life of streets and highways and
avoid costly roadway reconstruction.
In 1977, the Utah Department of Transportation
documented that for every $1 invested in early
preventive treatment of roadway pavement
approximately $3 in costs is avoided on
subsequent major rehabilitation.10
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
determined that the costs to repair deteriorated
pavement are four times the cost of applying a
thin surface treatment at the proper time,
before major deterioration occurs.26
An analysis conducted in 1996, by the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, of 60
1-3-14
different agencies throughout the US and
Canada found that $1 invested in preventive
maintenance at the appropriate time will save
$3 to $4 dollars in future rehabilitation costs.
This analysis also found that the use of
preventive maintenance programs, at the
appropriate time, extended the life of asphalt
concrete pavement by 5 to 6 years and the life
of portland cement concrete pavement by 9 to
10 years.26
ADOT officials conservatively estimate that an
additional $15 million is need each year to
maintain state highway pavements at minimally
acceptable conditions.3, 11 Exhibit I contains a
map and table that illustrates the classification
and pavement condition of Arizona’s highways.
A thorough review of regional, county and local
transportation plans indicates that pavement
preservation on local streets and county
roadways is not adequately funded. The Task
Force’s Needs Consultants conservatively
estimate that an additional $2 to $3 billion is
needed over the next 20 years to bring local
and county roads up to minimally acceptable
levels.27
Low Cost Congestion Relief Strategies
A variety of cost-effective, transportation
system improvements could be
implemented to enhance mobility and
relieve congestion in growing urban areas,
especially in the two large metropolitan
areas.
Regional Traffic Light Synchronization
The Institute of Transportation Engineers
estimates traffic signal improvements can
reduce travel times between 8% and 25%.
Advancements in traffic light technology also
reduces vehicle emissions and fuel
consumption.10
Advanced traffic light technology is being
implemented in both the Tucson and Phoenix
areas, to a very limited extent. Substantial
opportunities remain in both regions. The City
of Tempe is currently testing a real-time,
adaptive traffic signal system. The City of
Tucson has been installing video-based
detection systems to enhance “real time” traffic
monitoring. In the near future, this technology
should enable computers at the Tucson Traffic
Operation Center to automatically adjust traffic
signals cycles to compensate for changing
traffic conditions. This advanced technology is
being operated along a 2-mile segment of
Speedway Boulevard.28 Exhibit K illustrates the
number of signals that are linked to the Tucson
Transportation Operation Center.
Currently, ADOT utilizes traffic signal computer
hardware (controllers) that are not always
compatible with local traffic signal systems.
ADOT has a policy that requires the Department
to upgrade its controllers before turning over
jurisdiction of a traffic signal to a local entity.
A number of metropolitan cities have
implemented various forms of advanced
adaptive traffic control systems including:
Beverly Hills, Michigan; Los Angeles, California;
Toronto, Canada; Paris, France; Oakland,
California; and Madrid, Spain. Adaptive traffic
control systems reduce vehicle stops by 10 to
41% and reduce traffic delays by 14 to 44%.
The studies indicate that benefits of these
advanced systems depend on several variables,
such as number of intersections, spacing
between lights, corridor lengths and vehicle
demand patterns.10
As an example, São Paulo, Brazil installed an
adaptive signal control system along its major
commuter, commercial and service route (Av.
Lins de Vasconcelos). The system reduced
delays 14.4% in a 15-hour study period and
travel speeds improved 14%. Mid-day average
travel speeds improved 25%. Similarly, an
adaptive signal control system (107
intersections) in Madrid, Spain reduced average
travel time by 5%. Flow through the area was
improved by reducing the number of stops by
10% and traffic delays by 19%.10
Express Bus or Bus Rapid Transit
Service
Federal Transit Administration reports indicate
that express bus or bus rapid transit (BRT) is
being used more and more to reduce
congestion in major metropolitan areas such as
Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Orlando, Miami,
1-3-15
Ottawa, Cleveland, Nashville, Boston, Las Vegas
and Washington, D.C.29
Currently, there are 21 express bus routes and
70 buses dedicated to express bus service in
the Phoenix metropolitan region. The current
fare for express bus service is $1.75 and
monthly passes are available at a cost of $51.
Approximately 23% of express bus operating
expenses are recovered through the farebox.
Current express bus ridership is about 1,675
riders in each daily peak period.21
Presently, there are only 14 buses that provide
“express bus” service between the eastern
Maricopa County cities and Phoenix. The ability
to provide adequate, regional express bus
service has been hampered by limited funding,
the incomplete High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
lane system, and a lack of Park & Ride lots.21
Initial modeling by the Regional Public
Transportation Authority (RPTA) in Maricopa
County indicates that five additional routes and
doubling the number of express bus service
miles on an expanded HOV lane system in the
Phoenix region would nearly quadruple express
bus ridership. The model indicates that at least
5,850 commuters would utilize expanded
express bus service in the peak period each
day, compared to current peak-period ridership
of 1,675.21 The following chart compares the
current express bus system in the Phoenix
region to the expanded service outlined above.
Table 1-3-10
RPTA Express Bus Statistics
Factor FY2000 FY2025 (est.)
Routes 21 26
Avgerage Daily Ridership 3.150 11,500
Miles 796,000 1,400,000
Peak of Peak Frequency 30 minutes 15 minutes
Span of Service 2.5 hoursam/pm 4 hours am/pm
Average Ridership 23/one way trips 41/one way trips
Round Trips 70 140
Fleet Requirements 68 125
Estimate Avg. Speed 23 mph 29 mph
Ops Costs (2000$) $4M $8M+
Annualized Capital Costs $2M avg. annual $3.65M avg. annual
Source: Regional Public Transportation Authority
In the Tucson metropolitan area, Sun Tran, the
area’s transit provider requires private
employers to pay 100% of the cost of express
bus service for their employees, although Sun
Tran operates 9 of the 37 routes in the region.
(Sun Tran) uses its revenues to support local
transit and Dial-a-Ride service.) A recent study
identified the following corridors as good
candidates for regional express bus service:
Broadway-St Marys Road; Craycroft to Tucson
International Airport; Grant Road from the
University’s downtown complex to Ajo Highway;
Interstate 10 and Interstate 19; Oracle Road;
La Cholla-River Road-Alvernon to Pima
Community College East campus; Sunrise-
Skyline-Ina Road Corridor; from the Southwest
Laos Transit Center to Broadway-Kolb and
Tanque Verde Corridors.28
Currently, at least one private charter bus
company provides commuter express bus
service for several major employers in the
Phoenix metropolitan area. Several of the
express bus routes served by the private
provider are at capacity. The company uses 47
or 55 passenger buses.30
1-3-16
Vanpooling
RPTA in the metropolitan Phoenix area currently
uses federal and state funding to provide
vanpool service in the region. Currently, there
are 204 vans operating in the region serving
about 1,895 commuters each weekday. The
annual operating cost for this program in FY
2000 was $1.2 million. Farebox revenues cover
100% of the operating costs and a portion of
the capital costs. Each van travels
approximately 67.3 miles each weekday and
carries an average of 9.7 persons per van.21
RPTA is transitioning from privately owned vans
to RPTA owned vans. When fully
implemented, this will result in a higher
coverage of capital costs percentage.
According to RPTA, there is sufficient demand
to operate an additional 500 to 1,000 vans in
the metropolitan Phoenix area. The estimated
cost to add 100 vans per year is $2.5 million
(capital) and $500,000 (administrative). The
cost of operating an expanded vanpool program
would be negligible, presuming that federal
monies are available to purchase the vans.
RPTA estimates that this vanpool expansion
would carry 9,700 additional passengers per
weekday and would reduce weekday commuter
VMT by 11,000 miles per day or 11.2 million
miles per month or 135 million miles per year.
This expanded vanpool program would also
eliminate approximately 3.6 million pounds of
pollution per year.21
According to RPTA, there are 12 non-subsidized
vanpools operating outside Maricopa County,
six operating in Pima County and six operating
in Pinal County.
In Pima County, Raytheon Missile Systems has
taken the initial step to subsidize a vanpool at
$14 per seat per month. Raytheon is using a
private firm to provide the van, insurance and
maintenance. The 2000 Pima TRP survey
showed a 10% increase in vanpooling, with 277
participating employees.22
Additional HOV Lanes and Connecting
Ramps
In Houston, Texas there is a 90-mile network of
connected HOV lanes, direct access ramps, Park
and Ride lots and transit centers. These HOV
lanes carry up to 40% of the travelers on these
routes during the peak hour and reduce travel
time an average of 2 to 18 minutes during the
morning peak period.31
Currently, barrier-separated, reversible HOV
lanes operate on six Houston freeways.
Frequent express bus service is provided to
downtown Houston and other major activity
centers from 24 Park and Ride lots. In 2000,
approximately 106,400 people used Houston’s
HOV lanes daily, including 42,400 bus riders,
1,620 vanpool riders, 62,260 carpool
commuters and 120 motorcyclists. These HOV
lanes provided travel time savings of 4 to 22
minutes compared to general-purpose lanes.31
According to the Transportation Research
Board, development of an HOV lane system has
been an effective congestion reduction strategy
in several metropolitan areas, including San
Diego, Orange County, California, Seattle,
Northern Virginia and Washington D.C.31
HOV and Carpool lanes reduce congestion on
urban freeways. For example, in the
metropolitan Phoenix area, the eastbound
Interstate 10 the HOV lane at 39th Avenue
carried more people during the average
morning rush hour (3,250 people) than any of
the adjacent general-purpose lanes (2,250
people/lane). During the evening peak period,
the westbound Interstate 10 HOV lane carried
2,000 more people than any of the adjacent
general-purpose lanes.32
ADOT studies indicate that the cost of
constructing a system of HOV lanes throughout
the entire Maricopa Regional Freeway System
would be offset by the time-savings and
increased job productivity, although these
savings could not be used to fund the
improvements. For example, adding an HOV
lane on the Price Freeway, from SR 202 to US
60 would cost $12.5 million, but would generate
a $4.47/hour savings for each HOV commuter
each day.32 Exhibit L compares the cost of
1-3-17
adding HOV lanes and dollars saved per hour in
lost job productivity.
Completing the proposed Maricopa Regional
HOV Lane Plan would reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and would reduce delays during
peak periods. By 2020, the proposed HOV Plan
is estimated to reduce peak morning commuter
VMT by nearly 22.5 million miles per day, which
represents 23.6% of total projected VMT for the
Maricopa region at that time. The proposed
HOV Plan is expected to reduce 2020 morning
peak-period delays by over 30,000 hours per
day.32
The estimated total cost to build 20 additional
Park & Ride lots, 14 ramp connectors, 2
freeway to freeway HOV ramps, an additional
bus station and 93 additional miles of HOV
lanes on the region’s freeway system is
approximately $750 million.32 Exhibit L
provides more detailed information on this
proposed expansion of the Maricopa Regional
HOV Lane System.
High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes
Like HOV lanes, High Occupancy Toll (HOT)
lanes increase the capacity of existing freeway
corridors. HOT lane users pay a fee for use of
the HOV lanes, without the multiple passenger
requirements. The fees paid by these HOT lane
users capture a portion of the time and
productivity benefits received by the HOT lane
user and contribute to funding HOT lanes and
other transportation improvement.
In California, conversion of HOV lanes to HOT
lanes has increased carpooling. The Interstate
15 HOT Lane Program near San Diego,
California has been operational for the last six
years. The average rush hour fare on the
Interstate 15 HOT lanes is $2.25 per one-way
trip. A value pricing system has been in place
on the 91 Express Lanes near Anaheim,
California since December 1995. With the value
pricing system, trip fares are increased as
demand for the HOT lanes increases. The
average rush hour fare on the 91 Express lanes
is $2.90 per one-way trip. 32
California HOT lane facilities have improved
traffic flows on adjacent general-purpose lanes.
Average peak period speeds in the general-purpose
lanes have increased from 15 mph to
32 mph and morning peak period congestion
has decreased by 25%.32
A recent study concluded that it would cost
approximately $20 million to convert the
existing or programmed HOV lanes along the
Superstition Freeway and Interstate 10 to HOT
lanes, between eastern Maricopa County and
downtown Phoenix, with an average net annual
revenues of $9.9 million by the year 2010.32
Bus Pullout Lanes
Bus pullouts facilitate the orderly flow of traffic
and improve safety on major urban arterials
used by local buses.
Currently, there are 475 bus pullouts in
Phoenix, 61 in Tempe, nearly 100 in Scottsdale,
20 in Chandler, 48 in Glendale and 38 in Mesa.
As part of Transit 2000, the City of Phoenix
Transit Department plans to build 20 additional
pullouts each year over a 20-year period. In
addition, the City of Phoenix Street Department
plans to construct up to five additional pullouts
each year for the next 20 years. (RPTA, City of
Chandler and City of Glendale)
Fifty bus pullouts are under consideration for
funding from a proposed Tucson local
transportation sales tax.
The average cost of a urban bus pullout in
constant 2000 dollars is about $55,000.
Typically, funding for additional bus pullouts has
been a component of recent transit tax or bond
elections throughout the state.
National studies indicate that 50 to 60% of
all traffic congestion is attributed to
incidents (e.g., minor accidents, stalled or
abandoned vehicles on the freeway
shoulder, large debris in roadway). These
studies also indicate that formal incident
management programs and freeway
management systems are two effective
strategies for reducing congestion.
Incident Management Programs
Advanced incident management systems reduce
1-3-18
incidence clearance times by up to 8 minutes.
Travel times can be reduced when incident
management systems are integrated into
freeway management systems. Incident
management strategies, such as freeway
service patrols and traffic management centers
also reduce fatalities resulting from vehicle
crashes by 10%, due to earlier detection and
removal of stranded vehicles.10
It is projected that by the year 2005, incident-related
congestion will cost the U.S. public over
$75 billion in lost productivity and will result in
over 8.4 billion gallons of wasted fuel.10
Several key incident management strategies
were recently implemented in Arizona. “Quick
clearance” legislation was enacted. A formal
freeway service patrol on the Maricopa freeway
system was established and the state incident
management plan was developed to expedite
the investigation and clearance of crash scenes
on our state highways. A statewide
communication system was established
providing real-time information to motorists
about traffic bottlenecks and alternative routes
to avoid vehicle crash sites. Since their
inception in December 2000, Department of
Public Safety freeway service patrol units
operating on Maricopa regional freeways have
assisted 2,876 stranded motorists, helped
remove 1,146 abandoned vehicles, participated
in 81 collision crash investigations and
participated in 717 traffic control assignments
to re-route traffic due to highway crashes. The
freeway service patrol units also remove large
debris from the highways, thereby reducing
vehicle crashes.33
Estimates from the San Francisco area indicate
that freeway service patrols have reduced
hydrocarbons by 32 kg/day; CO emissions by
322 kg/day and NOx emissions by 789 kg/day.28
The Minnesota Highway Helper Program has
reduced the time a disabled vehicle remains on
the roadside, by eight minutes. Based upon
current data, it is estimated that this program
reduces the cost of delay by $1.4 million and
costs approximately $600,000 to operate
annually.28
Freeway Management Systems
Since 1988, ADOT has allocated funding to install
Freeway Management Systems throughout the
Maricopa Regional Freeway System. Currently,
ADOT and the State Transportation Board
typically allocate money each year to expand the
system. Historically, federal monies have
covered 90% of the funding for Freeway
Management System improvements. Exhibit M
illustrates the Freeway Management System for
the Phoenix Metropolitan area; Exhibit N shows
the Rural Variable Messages signs in the state;
and Exhibit O shows the Rural Cameras in the
state.
U.S. Department of Transportation studies
indicate freeway management systems (e.g.
ramp metering, real-time traffic message signs
and television or radio transmission of traffic
information) provide the following benefits10:
Average travel time reductions of 20% to
48%;
Average travel speed increases of 16% to
63%;
Freeway capacity increases of 17% of 25%;
Crash rate reductions of 15% to 50%;
Fuel consumption reductions of 41%; and
Substantial reductions in emissions.
A recent study of freeway ramp metering
demonstrated the effect of these systems. The
extensive ramp metering system on
Minneapolis-St Paul area freeways was shut
down for a six-week period and revealed the
following10:
Freeway volumes declined 9% without ramp
meters;
Average freeway travel times increased 22%
without the meters;
Freeway speeds declined by 7% without
meters;
Accidents increased 26% without meters;
and
Ramp metering generated annual savings of
25,121 hours throughout the system.
1-3-19
Increased Capacity on Major Roads
and Highways
Roads of Regional Significance
In 1991, the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) Regional Council adopted
design guidelines for Roads of Regional
Significance (RRS) throughout the metropolitan
Phoenix area. Numerous existing arterial
streets were identified as potential roads of
regional significance. In general, a principal
arterial street every three to six miles would be
modified to handle increased traffic volumes by
reconstructing these streets to the RRS design
standards.34 Exhibit P outlines the adopted MAG
design and access control guidelines for RRS
designated corridors. (MAG 1996 RRS Report)
According to MAG documents, the RRS proposal
was adopted because even under the most
optimistic future freeway scenarios, the region’s
arterial street system will carry at least 50% of
the vehicles traveling in the region. Currently,
66% of all traffic travels on the grid system and
33% of traffic is handled by the freeways within
the Maricopa County region.34
Re-engineering and widening a RRS-designated
corridor is a more cost-effective approach to
enhancing traffic flows than constructing a new
depressed freeway corridor. For example,
reconstructing Greenway Road to six lanes cost
approximately $3 to $5 million per mile,
including right-of-way. Many segments along
Greenway Road that previously handled only
12,000 vehicles prior to redesign and
reconstruction now handle average daily traffic
(ADT) levels of over 60,000 vehicles. The cost
of constructing one-mile of urban freeway is
about $39 million and a six-lane urban freeway,
such as SR 51 (Squaw Peak Freeway) handles
an ADT of 160,000 vehicles, according to
ADOT.11,35
There are numerous examples portions of city
streets in the Phoenix metropolitan area already
at RRS standards, such as Chandler Boulevard,
Scottsdale Road, Shea Boulevard and Greenway
Road. Many RRS-designated routes already
have five lanes and only require one more lane
to meet RRS design standards.
In many instances existing traffic signals on
RRS designated routes do not conform to RRS
design standards, which call for a minimum of
½ mile spacing between traffic signals.
According to traffic engineers from both the
Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas, the
installation of traffic lights more frequently than
½ mile apart severely limits traffic light
synchronization and disrupts the flow of traffic
on major arterial streets.35,28
1-3-20
Table 1-3-11
Highways of Statewide Significance
Highway
Designation Corridor Description
Average
Daily VMT
(thousands)
Corridor
Length
(miles)
20-Year
Cost
(millions)
I-8 I-10 Jct. to California
Border
2,161 185 167
I-10 California to New Mexico
Border
16,953 320 1,738
I-17 Phoenix to Flagstaff 7,126 136 1,466
I-19 Nogales to Tucson 1,915 72 126
I-40 California to New Mexico
Border
7,362 388 1,908
US60 I-10 To New Mexico
Border
4,710 344 1,068
US89 Flagstaff to Utah Border 2,109 152 346
US93 Wickenburg to Hoover
Dam
1,551 184 1,074
US95 San Luis to Bullhead City 1,679 264 451
SR77 Tucson to Globe 1,334 65 163
SR85 Buckeye to Gila Bend 466 40 219
SR260 Cottonwood to U.S. 191
Jct.
1,083 256 464
Total 48,449 2,406 9,190
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation
Highways of Statewide Significance
Since 1994, ADOT has conducted 33
comprehensive, long-range corridor studies on
highway corridors throughout the State. Twelve
major highway corridors have been identified as
critical components of Arizona’s statewide
transportation system. The combined length of
these 12 corridors is 2,406 miles or 36% of the
State’s total highway miles. These major
highway corridors also carry 38% of the State’s
total daily VMT.3
A conservative analysis of the Task Force’s
Needs database indicates that over $9 billion is
needed in the next 20-years to properly fund
major improvements (reconstruction and
widening projects) on these 12 major highway
corridors.3,11 The table above illustrates the
estimated system improvement cost for each of
these highway corridors.
1-3-21
Transportation Funding Issues
All Modes
The average costs associated with various
modes of transportation are significant in
terms of capital costs and annual operation
or maintenance costs. The following chart
illustrates the estimated costs to
implement and maintain various
transportation system improvements.
Table 1-3-12
Costs of Various Transportation Modes
Facility or Service Capital Costs Annual Operation Costs
Urban Freeway
(6-lanes, on/off ramps)
$39 million/mile $123,000/mile/year (including landscaping,
pavement preservation and general maintenace)
Rural Interstate
(2-lanes, TIs every 2 miles)
$15 million/mile $10,000/mile/year
Major Arterial Street
(6-lanes, center left turn)
$4.4 million/mile $113,000/mile/year
Rural County Road
(2-lane?, principal arterial)
$2.1 million/mile $49,900/mile/year
Tribal Road
(2-lanes)
$750,000/mile $113,000/mile/year
Light Rail Transit
(Phoenix 20-mile system)
$50 million/mile $25 million/mile
Regional Express Bus $325,000/45 passenger bus $250,000/bus
$5.00/revenue mile
HOV Lane
(Urban Freeway)
$5 million/mile $5,000/mile/year
Local Fixed Route Transit
(Typical urban corridor)
$320,000/40-passenger bus $225,000/year
$4.14/revenue mile
Urban Commuter Rail
(Maricopa County Region)
$170 million/mile $6 million/mile
Electric Passenger Rail
(Phoenix to Tucson)
$1,200 million/128 miles Total Cost: $140,423,000
Total Farebox Recovery: $102,784,000
Deficit: $43,745,000
High Speed Maglev Rail
(Phoenix to Tucson)
$3 billion/100 miles $32 million (3 cars per train, 5,000 daily
ridership)
Dial-a-Ride
(Typical urban route)
$60,000/11-passenger van $37.18/revenue mile
Vanpool
(Typical urban route)
$23,000/8 to 10 passenger van $16.94/revenue mile
Jitney Van
(Typical rural system)
$2.5 – $2.8 million/system $23,709/vehicle
Regional Bike Path
(Urban-Non-motorized)
$527,000/2.3 mile path $20,000/year
Sources: American Magline Group, ADOT, BIA, MAG, Oro Valley, PAG, RPTA
1-3-22
The Vision 21 Revenue Consultant estimates
that the 20-year comprehensive transportation
revenues for Arizona will be $41 billion. All
project revenues estimates were developed
using 2000 dollars to reduce uncertainty
associated with fluctuating inflation rates. The
following table includes Federal, State and local
sources.
Table 1-3-12
Projected Existing Transportation Revenue Sources
Mode FY2001-05 FY2006-11 FY2011-15 FY2016-20 Total
Roadway $7,955.1 $8,432.6 $8,580.1 $8,816.0 $33,783.8
Transit $1,133.0 $1,050.9 $986.8 $935.1 $4,106.1
Aviation $846.7 $795.5 $771.0 $751.1 $3,164.3
Total $9,935.1 $10,279.0 $10,337.9 $10,502.3 $41,054.3
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. All figures in millions of dollars.
Roads and Highways
A thorough review of current
transportation programs and long-range
transportation plans indicates that current
revenue sources will be insufficient to meet
projected population growth and
transportation demands over the next 20
years, despite additional federal and local
revenue sources becoming available in
recent years.
Recent ADOT Highway Performance
Measurement Studies (HPMS) of Arizona’s
highways, indicate that there is a $1.75 billion
(20-year) backlog in bringing rural highways up
to “minimally acceptable” standards. The
studies indicate that there is a $728 million
backlog (20-year) to bring urban highways up
to “minimally acceptable” standards.36
ADOT studies indicate that state highway
pavement preservation expenditures should be
increased by $15 million per year and annual
maintenance expenditures should be increased
by $20 million. The 20-year cost of these
increases is $700 million.11
A conservative analysis of the Task Force’s
Needs database indicates that over $9 billion is
needed in the next 20 years to properly fund
major improvements (reconstruction and
widening projects) on the key statewide
highway corridors.3,11
The updated 1997 County Needs Assessment
indicates that projected county roadway needs
exceed expected revenue by $5.1 billion over
the next 20 years.37
The build-out cost of HOV lanes, Park & Ride
Lots, quadruple express bus service and to
expand vanpooling significantly in the
metropolitan Phoenix area is approximately $1
billion over the next 20 years.32
The estimated 20 year costs of the MAG Long-
Range Plan exceed expected revenues by $9.4
billion.7
In Phoenix, the total street and freeway needs
exceed expected revenues by $1.753 billion and
the total public transportation needs exceed
expected revenues by $3.299 billion over the
next 20 years.35
The estimated 20 year cost of the PAG Long-
Range Transportation Plan exceed expected
revenues by $5.3 billion.8
Several major bypass routes have been
identified with substantial costs including
Wickenburg ($230 million), Gold Canyon in
north-east Pinal County ($150 million), and
Tucson – Sauharita ($300 million).11
1-3-23
Ongoing maintenance and repair of the
155-mile Maricopa Regional Freeway
System will compete with other existing
highway segments for scarce maintenance
dollars.
The voter-approved, 20 year Maricopa County
transportation sales tax is projected to provide
a total of $3.845 billion (inflation adjusted
dollars). Based on the 1985 ballot proposition,
these revenues are restricted to construction
purposes and none of these tax revenues can
be used for maintenance or preservation costs.
This tax is scheduled to end December 31,
2005.38
Historically, maintenance has not been funded
at the long-term optimal levels. An additional
$20 million per year is needed to reach optimal
levels.11
Typically, it takes 15 to 20 years or more to
allocate sufficient resources to complete
major widening projects (typically to four-lanes)
on some of the state’s major rural
highways.
It took 31 years to fully fund the widening of
the Beeline Highway to four lanes from Phoenix
to Payson.
The projected cost to add another lane in each
direction on Interstate 10 between Phoenix and
Tucson is about $255 to $350 million, not
including upgrades to numerous interchanges
that will be needed over the next 20 years.
Under current revenues, adding another lane in
each direction on this stretch of interstate could
take more than 30 years to complete.11,27
Under current revenues, it will take
approximately 25 years or more to add an
additional lane in each direction on Interstate
17 from the Loop 101 to Cordes Junction. The
estimated cost to add one lane in each direction
on this stretch of interstate is $125 million.11,27
Over the last seven years, ADOT has spent over
$100 million to widen US 93 to four lanes
between Kingman and Phoenix. At least $500
million in additional funding is needed to
complete this project. Under existing revenues,
it will take over 30 years to complete expansion
of US 93 into a four-lane highway.11,27
Based on current revenue sources, the 40 mile
segment of SR 85 between Gila Bend and
Buckeye will not be fully funded until 2011.11
Monies in the Highway User Revenue Fund
(HURF) are constitutionally restricted
principally to roadway and bridge
purposes. HURF revenues have become
less effective in fully meeting Arizona’s
growing transportation needs. Factors,
such as inflation, improved fuel efficiency,
and the increasing use of non-taxed fuel
sources, have and will continue to erode
the effective yield of Highway User
revenues.
Currently, the State’s fuel tax on gasoline and
diesel fuel generates approximately 56% of
total Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF)
revenues. The HURF revenues support 62% of
total roadway costs in the State (Wilbur Smith
Associates). The use of HURF revenues is
restricted by the Arizona Constitution (Article
IX, Section 14), primarily to road and bridge
improvements and maintenance.38
The following graph illustrates increases in the
gasoline taxes that would have been necessary
to offset the effects of inflation and vehicle fuel
efficiency on gasoline tax collections:
1-3-24
Figure 1-3-3
EFFECTS OF INFLATION AND VEHICLE FUEL
EFFICIENCY ON GASOLINE TAX RATES
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year
Cents Per Gallon
Actual Tax Rate
Rate to Keep Pace
with Inflation
Rate to Keep Pace
with Inflation and Fuel
Efficiency
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates
Ford, Honda, GM and other auto manufactures
are selling hybrid-drive vehicles that get 70 to
80 miles per gallon. Major auto manufactures
are taking steps to improve the fuel efficiency
of sport utility vehicles by 35%. High vehicle
fuel efficiency reduces the tax revenues
received per mile of travel, but does not
similarly reduce the costs of developing and
maintaining the transportation system.
As auto manufacturers begin to mass produce
fuel cells and alternatively fueled vehicles,
Arizona, the other states, and the federal
government will have to modify their existing
fuel tax structure or identify non-fuel revenue
sources to adequately fund future
transportation improvements, maintenance and
services.
According to the Federal Highway
Administration, the federal 4-cent per gallon tax
break provided for ethanol fuels costs Arizona
approximately $8 million each year. In Arizona,
alternative fuel vehicles are exempt from the
state’s 18-cent per gallon fuel tax. These
vehicles are also assessed only a minimal
vehicle license tax. The full financial impact of
these tax breaks on the HURF each year is
uncertain. As of May 2000 there were over
13,000 alternative vehicles, including
governmental fleets, registered in this state.38,39
Growing congestion, time delays, and
safety are common transportation
concerns in both urban and rural
communities. Among the key rural
transportation needs are growing demand
for para-transit services, congestion relief
where local roads intersect with state
highways, additional highway shoulders,
safety pullouts, passing lanes, and bypass
routes.
Approximately 37 miles of passing and climbing
lanes have been constructed by ADOT in FY
1999 through FY 2001 at a cost of $24.3
million.3 Exhibit Q contains a listing of these
projects.
1-3-25
The following chart indicates the projected costs
to construct some of the various bypass routes
that have been requested by communities
throughout Arizona.
Table 1-3-13
Bypass Route Costs
Community Impacted
Highway
Projected Cost Length
Apache Junction
(Gold Canyon) US60 $150 million 18 miles
Gila Bend I-8, SR85 $24 million 4 miles
Kingman (Wickieup) US93 $46 million 4 miles
Payson SR87/SR260 $70 million 8 miles
Tucson – Sauharita I-10, I-19 $300 million 19 miles
Wickenburg
(permanent bypass) US60 $230 million 25 miles
Source: ADOT State Engineer’s Office
Currently, there are 4,274 miles of two-lane
highways under ADOT’s jurisdiction. According
to ADOT, 60% of these two-lane highways
were built over 50 years ago to narrower lane
and shoulder width standards.11
Transit
Beginning in the late 1990’s cities moved
to fund transportation projects, especially
transit services, through local tax
referenda. While successful passage of
these local tax elections may help meet
municipal needs , they do not address
regional transportation facilities or
services.
Tempe Transit Tax: In September 1996,
Tempe voters approved a permanent ½% sales
tax dedicated to public transit improvements. A
fifteen member citizens’ Transportation
Commission was formed to provide citizen
oversight of the tax, among other
responsibilities. The average annual transit tax
revenues are approximately $24,000,000.
These revenues are used to support a variety of
transit, bicycle and pedestrian capital projects
including bus stop improvements and bus
pullouts, transit centers and maintenance
facilities, light rail planning and construction,
and bikepaths. The following is a summary of
how these revenues (in constant 2000 dollars)
will be allocated over the 20-year life of the tax:
Table 1-3-14
Tempe Transit Tax Uses
Service or Improvement 20-Year Total % of Total
Revenue
Local Bus Service $341 million 41%
Light Rail Rapid Transit $129 million 16%
Dial-a-Ride Service $33 million 4%
Bus Rapid Transit (Express Bus) See note below --
Support Services e.g. transit security $168 million 20%
Limited Stop Service N/A N/A
Neighborhood Mini-Bus Service $108 million 13%
Other Improvements e.g. bus pullouts $53 million 6%
Note: Tempe does not currently have plans for BRT service, although it is being discussed as an alternative in the
Tempe/Scottsdale Major Investment Study currently underway.
Source: City of Tempe
1-3-26
Phoenix Transit 2000 Plan: In March 2000,
Phoenix voters approved a 4/10th% sales tax to
fund various transit improvements or services.
The following is a summary of how these
revenues (in constant 2000 dollars) will be
allocated over the 20-year life of the tax:
Table 1-3-15
Phoenix Transit Tax Uses
Service or Improvement 20-Year Total % of Total
Revenue
Local Bus Service $2.515 billion 52%
Light Rail Rapid Transit $1.654 billion 34%
Dial-a-Ride Service $336 million 6%
Bus Rapid Transit (Express Bus) $160 million 4%
Support Services e.g. transit security $115 million 2%
Limited Stop Service $61 million 1%
Neighborhood Mini-Bus Service $54 million 1%
Other Improvements e.g. bus pullouts $44 million 1%
Source: “Transit 2000 – the Phoenix Transit Plan Summary ” City of Phoenix Public Transit Department, March 2000.
Flagstaff Transportation Tax: In May 2000,
Flagstaff voters approved several components
of a new transportation sales tax. The new
revenues are dedicated to specific
transportation improvements including a
railroad overpass, street improvements and
transit system improvements. The sales tax is
expected to generate approximately $121
million over the 20-year life of the tax. The
sales taxes will be used to fund the following
four transportation projects and services:
Table 1-3-16
Flagstaff Transportation Tax Uses
Project or Service 20-year Total
Fourth Street Overpass $27.6 million
Pedestrian/Bike Path Projects $16.0 million
Street Improvements & Maintenance
(including computerized signal synchronization) $52.0 million
Transit –expanded bus system $14.0 million
Source: “Transportation 2000 Decision”, City of Flagstaff
Glendale Transportation Sales Tax: In
November 2000, Glendale voters approved a
½% sales tax for transportation purposes, from
2002 to 2025. The $1 billion plan includes
anticipated federal, regional and state funding,
farebox revenues and city revenues. The ½%
tax is expected to cover 58% of the plan. The
following is how the Citizens Advisory
Committee Transportation Issues believes these
local tax revenues should be spent:
1-3-27
Table 1-3-17
Glendale Transportation Tax Uses
Service or Improvement 23-Year Total % of Total
Revenue
Local Bus Service $340 million 34%
Street Improvements $310 million 31%
Light Rail Rapid Transit $170 million 17%
Dial-a-Ride Service $80 million 8%
Support Services e.g. transit security $60 million 6%
Other Modes e.g. bicycle $40 million 4%
Source: “Transportation Package Needs More Specifics” Glendale Star, June 21, 2001.
Tucson: A Citizens Advisory Committee has
been formed to develop a plan on how to spend
a potential ½% city sales tax over the next 20
years. The ½% sales tax is expected to
generate approximately $40 million per year.
The Advisory Committee is expected to forward
its recommendations to the Tucson City Council
by early December 2001.
Intercity Passenger Rail
Intercity passenger rail service between
Phoenix and Tucson does not appear to be
a cost-effective means of relieving
congestion compared to building an
additional lane in each direction on this
heavily-utilized interstate.
Traffic trends show a need to widen Interstate
10 between Phoenix and Tucson to a total of six
lanes by 2005 and to a total of eight lanes by
2020.17
A 1997 ADOT study evaluated various
alternative means to alleviate growing
congestion on the Interstate 10 corridor
between Phoenix and Tucson. The following is
a comparison of the five major alternatives
evaluated in the ADOT study.17
Table 1-3-18
I –10 Alternatives
Alternative
Top
Speed
Travel
Time
Capital
Costs
Annual
Operating
Costs
Annual
Vehicles
or
Ridership
Highway Widening*
(New lane each way)
75mph 103
minutes
$255 million $3.20 million 3,213,000
Conventional Rail*
(Minor upgrades)
80mph 117
minutes
$378 million $17.6 million 1,277,500
Conventional Rail*
(Major upgrades)
125mph 82
minutes
$1.15 billion $96.2 million 2,482,000
High Speed Rail*
(Electric)
175mph 60
minutes
$3.6 billion $138 million 3,212,000
High Speed Rail**
(Maglev)
300mph Approx. 39
minutes
$3 billion $32 million 1,800,000
Source: *”Arizona High Speed Rail Feasibility Study”, Arizona Department of Transportation, April 1998.
**American Magline Group
1-3-28
Building an additional lane in each direction on
this stretch of Interstate 10 will cost between
$255 million and $350 million, excluding major
traffic interchange improvements and would
move an additional 3.21 million vehicles per
year. The least expensive conventional rail
alternative has a capital cost of $378 million
and would move only 1.217 million riders per
year. High-speed passenger rail (electric)
would move a comparable amount of people as
adding one more lane in each direction, but at
three to four times the cost ($1.15 billion).17
Additional highway lane capacity will also move
substantial amounts of goods and freight in
addition to motorists whereas transit tends to
move primarily people.
The following are three examples of passenger
or commuter rail systems that link numerous
urban centers and are considered to be very
successful transit operations based on recent
evaluations by the American Public Transit
Association40:
Amtrak Cascades: This passenger rail system
located in the Pacific Northwest links 16
different communities, including Vancouver,
British Columbia; Seattle and Olympia,
Washington; and Portland and Eugene, Oregon.
In 1999, the average travel time between
Portland and Seattle was 3.5 hours. By 2018
travel time between these two metropolitan
areas is expected to be 2.5 hours due to newer
track and system improvements. The top
speed of the Cascade Talgo trains is 79 mph.
The average daily ridership is 1,123 persons
and the annual total ridership is 410,000
passengers.
South Shore Line: This 90-mile commuter rail
system serves 13 urban communities located
along Lake Michigan. Various segments of the
system have been in operation since the 1920s.
In 1982, a major capital equipment upgrade
including the addition of 41 new cars, was
completed. In 1992, an additional 17 cars were
added. The trains travel at a top speed of 79
mph. The average daily ridership is 9,589 and
the total annual ridership is 3.5 million
passengers.
Aviation
Historically, federal aviation monies have
funded over 80% of the aviation capital
improvement projects in Arizona.
Rededicating all flight property tax
revenues to the State Aviation Fund will
enhance the ability of the state and local
communities to secure additional federal
aviation grants.
The State Aviation Needs Study (SANS 2000)
indicates that $315 million in additional
revenues is needed over the next 10 years to
maintain existing levels of performance at the
20 commercial service and reliever airports
throughout the State.15
The SANS 2000 study also indicates that an
additional $649 million in new funding is need
to bring these airports up to minimally
acceptable guidelines.15
Currently, there are 309 airports in Arizona that
are registered with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Eighty-one of these are
open to the public and thereby eligible for
grants from the State Aviation Fund. Fifty-seven
of these facilities are recognized by the
FAA as nationally significant airports and are
thereby eligible for federal funding for airport
planning and capital improvements.41
In 1999, Wilbur Smith Associates completed a
study at the request of ADOT and Governor Hull
entitled “Airport Small Community Economic
Development and Transportation Program”
(ASCET). The ASCET study indicates that
aviation improvements would enhance
economic development, attract and retain
employers, and increase tourism in numerous
communities throughout Arizona.18
Other Modes
Since 1993, ADOT and the State Transportation
Board have allocated nearly $70 million in
federal revenues for highway enhancement
projects. Over 60% of these revenues or $49
million have been allocated to pedestrian and
bikepath projects. An additional $7.35 million
in local matching funds have been used to fund
these pedestrian and bikepath improvements.
1-3-29
Economic Impact of Transportation
National and state studies clearly indicate
the significant direct impact transportation
expenditures have on our economy.
Roadway and Highway Construction
Transportation construction is a $153 billion per
year industry in the United States.44 This
industry makes a greater contribution to the
Gross Domestic Product than do the nation’s
farms ($93.9 billion), the petroleum industry
($88.6 billion), the motion picture industry
($31.3 billion) and the tobacco industry ($19
billion).45
Each $1 billion invested in the federal highway
program creates a total of 42,100 jobs in three
categories: direct, indirect and induced jobs. A
$1 billion investment in highways creates 7,000
direct jobs (workers that work directly on
highway projects); 19,7000 indirect jobs
(workers that help supply materials for highway
construction); and 14,500 induced jobs
(workers that benefit from the spending of
highway construction and supply industry
employees).46
The value of highway contracts awarded in
August 2001 throughout the country was
$3.204 billion.47 In August 2001, ADOT awarded
$100 million in highway contracts.11
In August 2001 approximately $1.3 billion in
bridge and tunnel contracts were awarded
throughout the country.47
Aviation
In 1999, Arizona State University’s College of
Business completed an analysis for ADOT of the
direct and indirect impact of aviation on
Arizona’s economy. The following are some of
the key findings from the ASU report on
aviation’s direct impact on this State in 199842:
Aviation’s primary impact on Arizona’s
economy was $15.1 billion in economic
activity including 167,325 jobs with a payroll
of $4.3 billion.
The primary impact of Arizona’s commercial
aviation, as measured by combined revenues
of private firms and budgets of government
agencies, was $3.8 billion in 1998.
Employment directly related to commercial
aviation was 29,432 with an annual payroll
of $884.1 million.
Over 10,500 Arizona workers have jobs
directly related to general aviation.
Economic activity from general aviation
aircraft owners and general aviation airports
was nearly $1 billion in 1998.
Arizona’s aerospace manufacturing firms
produced output valued at $4.4 billion in
1998. These manufacturing firms employed
26,935 workers, with average annual salaries
exceeding $50,000.
Air travelers and tourists spent $4.5 billion in
Arizona in 1998, creating 77,000 jobs in
lodging, retailing and the service sector.
Transit
In 1999, Cambridge Systematics prepared a
quantitative analysis for the American Public
Transit Association on the impact of public
transportation on the Nation’s economy. The
following are some of the key findings from this
report43:
Transit capital investment is a significant
source of job creation. An estimated 314
jobs are created for each $10 million
invested in transit capital improvements.
Local businesses benefit from transit
operations. The analysis indicates that a $10
million investment in transit results in a $30
million gain in sales.
1-3-30
Transportation Planning and Programming Issues
Development of a 20-Year State
Transportation Plan
Arizona needs an integrated long-range (at
least 20 years) transportation plan. A 20-
year plan will identify the State’s critical
transportation needs. The Plan should
include all modes of transportation
including roadway, rail, transit, air, bicycle,
pedestrian, and freight as well as
alternatives including travel reduction
programs and telecommunications.
ADOT is required, by law, to establish a 20-year
Highway Construction Plan by July 1, 2003.
Although ADOT is developing a 20-year
multimodal plan, state law only requires a 20-
year state highway plan.
Currently, ADOT and the State Transportation
Board annually develop and approve a rolling 5-
year highway construction program. While this
process is effective for identifying and
addressing short-term needs, it creates false
expectations that some highway projects may
be funded in the sixth year or the next 5-year
program. A 20-year plan will more reliably
identify the time period during which major
highway corridor improvements can be
expected to be funded under current revenue
projections. Additionally, the State’s
transportation needs and expected revenues
will be more clearly identified.
Performance Based Planning
and Programming
Performance based planning and
programming is being used effectively in
other states to maximize the effectiveness
of limited transportation resources.
Current state, local and regional transportation
plans include very little data concerning the
expected impact of specific projects and
resource allocations on the performance of the
local, regional or state transportation systems.
Transportation agencies elsewhere have
improved the positive correlation among
resource allocations, system improvements, and
the performance of the overall transportation
system by using performance based
processes.48
Colorado, Florida, Montana and Washington
have implemented performance based planning
and programming.49 While each state has
implemented this type of project prioritization
and evaluation process differently, the following
flow chart illustrates some of the common
elements of performance based planning and
programming3:
Figure 1-3-4
Performance Based Planning
POLICIES
Identify Objective
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluate System
Needs
Funding
Available
Identify Alternative
Projects to Meet Needs
Trade-off Projects Based
on Costs and Benefits
Select Project
To Meet Needs
Implement
Evaluate Results
1-3-31
New analytical computer models have been
developed by the U.S. Department of
Transportation to enable transportation
planners and policy makers to evaluate
potential performance outcomes of competing
transportation system improvements within a
particular corridor. For example, the Surface
Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model
(STEAM) compares alternative capital projects
(e.g. mixed-flow freeway lane, HOV lane and
rail extension). STEAM generates various
outputs including travel-time savings, vehicle
emissions, energy costs and benefit/cost ratios.
Another model, known as the Intelligent
Transportation System Deployment, can
estimate the impacts, benefits and costs from
the deployment of various ITS components.49
For years ADOT has utilized performance based
planning and programming to select and fund
pavement preservations projects.
Standardized Transportation Data Collection
and Reporting
There is a lack of verifiable and
standardized data to measure how
effectively transportation improvements
and services are meeting our State’s
existing and future transportation needs.
Federal law requires Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) to develop fiscally
constrained long-range transportation plans.
However, existing MPO plans within Arizona
typically do not clearly identify which services or
improvements can be funded by existing
revenue sources and which cannot be
completed without tax increases.
MPOs and Councils of Governments (COGs)
collect and report data in significantly different
ways. Disparities among MPOs and COGs exist
because of differences in available funding,
expertise, and support for data collection
activities. In recent years, ADOT has developed
Geographic Information System (GIS)-based
data collection software for use by the MPOs
and COGs. Use of the software will assure both
the quality and consistency of collecting
transportation data on a statewide basis.7,8
ADOT and regional planning entities have
worked cooperatively in recent years to improve
the planning and programming process,
through efforts such as the “Casa Grande
Resolves”. Nevertheless, available
transportation data and information varies
widely by jurisdiction, thereby making it very
difficult to perform any statewide analysis or
assessment of our State’s transportation
system.
Transportation and Land Use Planning
There is a distinct gap in the coordination
of land use plans among state, local and
regional transportation plans.
Municipalities or counties are not required to
report major amendments to their general use
or comprehensive land use plans to appropriate
transportation agencies or organizations.
Existing statutes only require municipalities and
counties to consider impacts of proposed
changes on adjacent communities and
infrastructure. They are not required to
consider the impacts to a region’s overall
transportation system, when developing land
use plans or approving developments.
Local and county governments often fail to limit
development along state highway bypass
routes, thereby eroding their effectiveness and
creating the need for additional, costly bypass
routes.
Frequently, cities and counties are pressured by
homeowners associations, businesses or
developers to ignore adopted regional
guidelines governing corridor preservation,
access control standards and traffic light
spacing on routes of regional significance.
Failure to adhere to these guidelines adversely
impacts traffic flows along these designated
corridors and creates congestion and traffic
delays.
The Arizona Legislature has enacted legislation,
in recent years, to help protect commercial
service and military airports from adjacent
development. However, there is no regional
entity or legal mechanism to modify airport
operations or to ensure that local or county
1-3-32
land use plans do not adversely impact airports
or air space corridors.
Casa Grande Resolves
Federal, state and regional transportation
officials have worked to streamline
transportation planning and programming
processes and to improve communication
and cooperation among these various
agencies.
In the spring of 1999, representatives of ADOT,
the Federal Highway Administration (HWA),
MPOs and COGs throughout Arizona met in
Casa Grande to discuss and develop a new
statewide transportation planning and
programming process. The group adopted a
document known as the “Casa Grande
Resolves”, which outlines seven guiding
principles for better transportation planning and
programming. These seven guiding principles
are listed below.
There will be one multimodal transportation
planning process for each region that is
seamless to the public which includes early
and regular dialogue and interaction at the
state and regional level and recognizes the
needs of state, local and tribal governments
and regional organizations.
It will be a process that encourages early
and frequent public participation and
stakeholder involvement and that meets the
requirements of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and other
state and federal planning requirements.
The policy and transportation objectives of
the state, regional and local plans will form
the foundation for the statewide Long-Range
Transportation Plan (20 years).
The statewide Five-Year Transportation Plan
and Programs will be based on clearly
defined and agreed to information and
assumptions including there sources
available, performance measures, and other
technical information.
Each project programmed (within the Five-
Year Plan) shall be linked to the statewide
Long-Range Transportation Plan with each
project selected to achieve one or more of
the Plan objectives. The program will
represent an equitable allocation of
resources.
Implementation of the Plan and Program
shall be monitored using a common database
of regularly updated program information
and allocations.
There will be a shared responsibility by state,
local and tribal governments and regional
organizations to ensure that Plan and
Program implementation meets the
transportation needs of the people of
Arizona.
Among other changes, the 1999 meeting led to
the creation of a Resource Allocation Advisory
Committee (RAAC) to help develop policies and
annual recommendations regarding the
allocations of ADOT’s discretionary funding.
Arizona Transportation Information System
New computer technology (e.g., Highway
Performance Measurement Systems) have
made it feasible for the State to develop an
affordable and comprehensive
transportation database to inventory and
monitor state, county, local and tribal
roadway systems.
Over the last five years ADOT has been
developing and implementing the Arizona
Transportation Information System (ATIS) to
enable the State to maintain a geographic
information system (GIS) database and photo
log of all major highways, streets and roads
throughout the state.50
ATIS is used to assist in the collection of
Highway Performance Measurement System
data, thereby providing a core set of
information for all public roads. Certified public
mileage and responsible jurisdiction, estimated
traffic counts and vehicle miles traveled,
function classification or degree of regional
significance, roadway surface type, roadway
surface condition, and number of lanes are
among the data collected.50
Data and photo logs for the over 6,600 miles of
state highways has been entered into the ATIS.
However, the data and photo logs for county,
1-3-33
local and tribal roads have not been entered due
to limited funding and the fact that these
jurisdictions submit this information voluntarily.
Tribal roadways could be included in the
database, if the tribes collected and submitted
the required data.50
The entire ATIS database, including photo logs,
could be completed and updated for
approximately $600,000 per year for five years.
Thereafter, the projected cost to maintain the
system is about $300,000 per year.50
Transportation Governance Issues
State Transportation Board
Some provisions in state law dealing with
the State Transportation Board are
outdated and limit the ability of growing
urban and rural communities to submit
viable candidates for the Governor’s
consideration.
ARS 28-301 divides the State into six
transportation districts and provides for the
appointment of one Transportation Board
member from each district, except two are
appointed from the Maricopa County district.
Some districts cover just one county and one
district is comprised of four counties. The
boundaries of the current six districts were
created by legislation over 20 years ago.
ARS 28-302 requires the Governor to rotate the
appointment of board members from multi-county
districts, among the counties in the
district. Some growing urban areas must wait
long periods of time before a resident of their
county can be considered for appointment. For
example, District 6 covers four counties: La Paz,
Mohave, Yavapai and Yuma. Under current
law, these counties can only have direct
representation on the State Transportation
Board every 18 years. There is concern that
this antiquated requirement fosters
parochialism regarding what projects are
included in the State’s Five-Year Highway
Construction Program.
Under current law, only two of the seven
members (29%) of the State Transportation
Board come from Maricopa County, even
though 60% of Arizona’s total population, 45%
of statewide daily VMT, and 55% of all
registered vehicles are in Maricopa County.
The graph below illustrates the percentage of
population, daily VMT and registered vehicles
for Maricopa County, Pima County and the
remainder of the State.
Figure 1-3-5
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, ADOT Data Center and Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percentage
Population DVMT Vehicle Registration
Percentage of Population, DVMT and Registered Vehicles
Maricopa County Pima County Remainder of State
1-3-34
Following the passage of the ½% freeway
sales tax in Maricopa County in 1985,
ADOT and the State Transportation Board
shifted more of ADOT’s discretionary
monies to make major improvements on
several key rural highways.
Prior to 1985, approximately 60% of ADOT’s
discretionary funding went to major
improvements on highways within the Maricopa
County region. From 1986 through 1999, the
percentage of annual ADOT discretionary
funding allocated to this region steadily
declined. According to some estimates only
19% was allocated to the Maricopa County
region in 1998.3 The graph the following page
illustrates the steady decline in ADOT
discretionary funding to the Maricopa County
region.
This shift in allocation of ADOT’s discretionary
funding over this 13-year period, enabled ADOT
and the State Transportation Board to program
major improvements on several key rural
highways, such as SR 90, the Beeline Highway
and US 93.
Figure 1-3-6
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation Planning Division
Regional Planning Organizations
Mayors elected from individual cities
control the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations within the State. This
structure establishes an inherent conflict
between the regional responsibilities of the
MPO and the local responsibilities of each
mayor. Locally elected mayors are
obligated to represent the best interests of
their constituents and most act
accordingly. Therefore, regional plans and
priorities are

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

Executive Summary
i-1
Key Task Force Findings and Recommendations
The Transportation Vision 21 Task Force has
identified ten major recommendations to
improve Arizona’s statewide transportation
system based on its studies and findings. The
following section highlights the Task Force’s key
recommendations and some of the findings that
support the recommendations.
Reform and Improve Transportation Planning and Programming Processes
Task Force Findings:
Performance based planning and programming
used effectively in other states to maximize the
effectiveness of limited transportation resources.
Major Recommendation One:
REQUIRE PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING AND
PROGRAMMING
All transportation planning and programming
organizations within Arizona should be required
to utilize performance based planning and
programming techniques. The State
Transportation Board should adopt approved
performance based planning and programming
processes for use by all such organizations. All
organizations charged with developing
transportation priorities within the State should
be mandated, by law, to use the adopted
processes.
Task Force Findings:
Arizona needs an integrated long-range (at least
20 years) transportation plan. A 20-year plan
will identify the State’s critical transportation
needs. The Plan should include all modes of
transportation including roadway, rail, transit,
air, bicycle, pedestrian, and freight as well as
alternatives including travel reduction programs
and telecommunications.
Major Recommendation Two:
DEVELOP AND ADOPT A LONG-RANGE,
STATEWIDE, MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
State law should require the State Transportation
Board to adopt a Long-Range (minimum of
twenty years), Statewide, Multimodal
Transportation Plan. ADOT should develop the
Plan, under the State Transportation Board’s
direction, utilizing performance based planning
techniques. The Plan should incorporate all
modes of transportation, the transportation
needs of all regions and all jurisdictions within
the state and should consider any information
developed as a result of federally mandated
planning processes.
Task Force Findings:
There is a distinct gap in the coordination of land
use plans among state, local and regional
transportation plans.
Major Recommendation Three:
COORDINATE LAND USE PLANNING AND
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
State, regional and local planning entities must
increase coordination of their long-range, land
use plans and their long-range transportation
plans.
Local land use plans must consider state and
regional transportation plans, especially with
respect to future transportation system corridors.
i-2
In turn, state and regional transportation plans
should recognize local land use plans. Where
appropriate, these plans should also incorporate
air quality measures.
The coordination and consideration of the
overlaying transportation system plans and land
use plans by all affected jurisdictions will
increase the usefulness and benefits of those
plans and will help avoid unintended conflicts in
the future.
Enhance Transportation System Accountability and Responsiveness
Task Force Findings:
There is a lack of verifiable and standardized
data to measure how effectively transportation
improvements and services are meeting our
State’s existing and future transportation
demands or needs.
New computer technologies (e.g. Highway
Performance Measurement System) have made it
feasible for the state to develop an affordable
and comprehensive transportation database to
inventory and to monitor state, county, local and
tribal roadway systems.
Major Recommendation Four:
ESTABLISH COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
ADOT should be required to establish a
comprehensive financial management system
encompassing all aspects of the state
transportation system. The comprehensive
system should include separate certifications of
future, estimated revenues and future, estimated
system costs as reflected in the statewide 20-
year transportation plan. All transportation
revenues (federal, state and local/regional)
received by all state agencies should be included
in the certification.
Task Force Findings:
Mayors elected from individual cities control the
Metropolitan Planning Organizations within the
State. This structure establishes an inherent
conflict between the regional responsibilities of
the MPO and the local responsibilities of each
mayor. Locally elected mayors are obligated to
represent the best interests of their constituents
and most act accordingly. Therefore, regional
plans and priorities are frequently evaluated on
the basis of local impacts, rather than regional
consequences.
Beginning in the late 1990’s cities moved to fund
transportation projects, especially transit
services, through local tax referenda. While
successful passage of these local tax elections
may help meet municipal needs, they do not
address regional transportation facilities or
services.
Major Recommendation Five:
ESTABLISH URBAN REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE DISTRICTS
Regional Transportation and Land Use Districts
should be established in the large urban areas to
address regional, multimodal transportation
requirements, land use compatibility and other
regional impacts of development. The Districts
should be responsible for developing,
implementing and operating multimodal
transportation systems to meet regional
transportation needs. The Districts should
enable the large urban areas to: 1) improve and
maintain regionally significant transportation
systems and services; 2) ensure broad, regional
land use compatibility; and 3) address the
regional impacts of development through the
establishment of districts that are not bound to
or limited by existing county or incorporated city
boundaries.
Task Force Findings:
Some provisions in state law dealing with the
State Transportation Board are outdated and
limit the ability of growing urban and rural
communities to submit viable candidates for the
Governor’s consideration.
i-3
Following the passage of the ½ percent freeway
sales tax in Maricopa County in 1985, ADOT and
the State Transportation Board shifted more of
ADOT’s discretionary monies to make major
improvements on several key rural highways.
Major Recommendation Six:
STRENGTHEN THE ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION
BOARD
The Arizona State Transportation Board should
be increased to nine members. The members
would no longer represent specific geographic
“districts”, but would represent the State as a
whole. The following restrictions would be
imposed on appointments to the State
Transportation Board:
A. Three members should be appointed from
each county with a population greater
than one-third of the state’s population,
according to the most recent decennial
census;
B. One member should be appointed from
each county with a population greater
than 500,000, according to the most
recent decennial census, provided such
county is not included in paragraph A;
C. Five members should be appointed from
the remainder of the state not included
in paragraph A or B, but no more than
one member may be appointed from any
one county; and
D. State Transportation Board members may
not serve in elected positions.
In appointing members of the State
Transportation Board, the Governor shall
consider individuals with a wide variety of
relevant knowledge and experience, including
knowledge of roadways, mass transit services,
aviation systems, freight movement, bicycle and
pedestrian needs, and local, regional, statewide,
and tribal transportation issues.
Establish 20-Year Statewide Transportation System “Budget”
Task Force Findings:
The demands on Arizona’s transportation system
have grown and will continue to grow. Arizona’s
current transportation system cannot handle the
projected population growth and increasing
travel demand.
The average costs associated with various modes
of transportation are significant in terms of
capital and annual operation or maintenance
costs.
A thorough review of current transportation
programs and long-range transportation plans
indicates that current revenue sources will be
insufficient to meet projected population growth
and transportation demands over the next 20
years, despite additional federal and local
revenue sources becoming available in recent
years.
Typically, it takes 15 to 20 years or more to
allocate sufficient resources to complete major
widening projects (typically to four-lanes) on
some of the state’s major rural highways.
Monies in the Highway User Revenue Fund
(HURF) are constitutionally restricted principally
to roadway and bridge purposes. HURF
revenues have become less effective in fully
meeting Arizona’s growing transportation needs.
Factors, such as inflation, improved fuel
efficiency, and the increasing use of non-taxed
fuel sources, have and will continue to erode the
effective yield of Highway User revenues.
Major Recommendation Seven:
INCREASE DEDICATED TRANSPORTATION
REVENUES
Dedicated transportation revenues should be
increased gradually over the next twenty years
by approximately $20 billion dollars, in constant
year 2000 dollars, to meet the expected needs of
Arizona’s multimodal, statewide transportation
system. A series of gradual tax rate increases
should be implemented throughout the 20-year
period. In recognition of the uncertain schedule
for implementation of these recommendations,
i-4
each recommended adjustment has been
scheduled within the 20-year period.
The new transportation revenue system should
emphasize sufficient flexibility to permit the
allocation of revenues to the transportation
system improvements identified through the
performance based planning and programming
processes described above.
The funding sources for transportation need to
expand beyond the dedicated revenues of the
Highway User Revenue Fund, the largest
component of which is fuel taxes. Not only are
these monies constitutionally restricted to street,
highway and bridge purposes, the effective
revenue generating power of the fuel tax
continues to be eroded by conversions to
alternative fuels and the increasing fuel efficiency
of the general vehicle fleet.
In recognition of the need for greater flexibility in
funding all modes of transportation the
recommended revenues rely heavily on non-restricted
revenue sources.
Increase Fuel Taxes
State fuel taxes should be increased gradually
over the next twenty years. The initial increase
of $.05 per gallon should be enacted in Year 1 or
as soon as possible. An additional $0.04
increase should be imposed in Year 4 and
smaller $.02 increases should occur in Year 9
and Year 14.
Establish A Dedicated Statewide Sales Tax
A dedicated, statewide transportation sales tax
surcharge should be phased-in, beginning with a
0.25% surcharge in Year 1, or as soon possible
and an additional 0.5% surcharge is proposed in
Year 5. The timing of implementation of the
additional 0.5% surcharge should, if possible,
coincide with the expiration of the Maricopa
County Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) tax
during FY 2006.
Establish Dedicated Statewide Development
Fees For System Expansion
A dedicated, statewide development fee equal to
1 per cent of value should be enacted and
imposed on all new commercial and residential
development in the State. The revenues
generated from the fee should be used
exclusively for improvements to the state
transportation system required to meet the
increased transportation demand for moving
goods and people associated with the
development. This fee is distinct from the locally
imposed fee recommended above to deal with
specific major developments.
Identify and Establish Transportation System Funding Priorities
Task Force Findings:
State and national studies indicate that
pavement preservation programs can extend the
life of streets and highways and can avoid costly
roadway reconstruction.
Ongoing maintenance and repair of the 155-mile
Maricopa Regional Freeway System will compete
with other existing highway segments for scarce
maintenance dollars.
Major Recommendation Eight:
PRIORITIZE SYSTEM PRESERVATION
The first priority for transportation revenues
should be maintenance and preservation of
existing, used and useful system assets. Monies
should be prioritized for preservation at the long-term
optimal level. All transportation agencies
should be mandated, by law, to establish system
preservation analysis models similar to the
pavement preservation model used by ADOT for
the state highway system.
Task Force Findings:
Existing and future congestion on state and local
roadways will hinder Arizona’s economy and
threaten the quality of life for our citizens and
visitors.
i-5
National studies indicate that 50% to 60% of all
traffic congestion is attributed to incidents (e.g.,
minor accidents, stalled or abandoned vehicles
on the freeway shoulder, large debris in
roadway). These studies also indicate that
formal incident management programs and
freeway management systems are two effective
strategies for reducing congestion.
Major Recommendation Nine:
PRIORITIZE CONGESTION RELIEF AND
COMMUTER SERVICES
The next highest priority for transportation
revenues should be congestion relief, improving
commuter services and reducing delays. A
specific portion of state collected transportation
revenues (in addition to local monies) should be
dedicated to addressing existing and future
commuter needs and congestion relief in all
areas of the State.
Task Force Findings:
A variety of cost-effective, transportation system
improvements could be implemented to enhance
mobility and relieve congestion in growing urban
areas, especially in the two large metropolitan
areas.
Major Recommendation Ten:
IMPLEMENT IMMEDIATE AND OBVIOUS SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS
There are a substantial number of immediate
and obvious improvements to the State’s
transportation system that should be
immediately implemented. Most of these
improvements can be most effectively
implemented in the State’s largest urban areas,
although some have statewide applicability.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transmittal Letter Transmittal_Letter.pdf
Key Task Force Recommendations and Findings i V21_ExecSum.pdf
Section One: Task Force Vision, Goals, Finding and Recommendations
Chapter One: Background and Task Force Charge 1-1-1 V21_Ch1.pdf
Chapter Two: Task Force Goals and Vision 1-2-1 V21_Ch2.pdf
Chapter Three: Task Force Findings 1-3-1 V21_Ch3.pdf
Chapter Four: Task Force Recommendations 1-4-1 V21_Ch4.pdf
Section Two: Task Force Process, Studies and Analyses
Chapter Five: Task Force Schedule and Process 2-5-1 V21_Ch5.pdf
Chapter Six: Public Input — Phase I 2-6-1 V21_Ch6.pdf
Chapter Seven: Task Force Studies and Analyses 2-7-1 V21_Ch7.pdf
Chapter Eight: Public Education and Input — Phase II 2-8-1 V21_Ch8.pdf
Chapter Nine: Implementation Considerations 2-9-1 V21_Ch9.pdf
Appendices
Needs and Analytical Consultants’ Report to the Task Force A-1-1 V21_Ap01.pdf
Booz-Allen Hamilton
Revenue Consultant’s Report to the Task Force A-2-1 V21_Ap02.pdf
Wilbur Smith Associates
Task Force Preliminary Recommendations A-3-1 V21_Ap03.pdf
Task Force Glossary of Terms and Acronyms A-4-1 V21_Ap04.pdf
Public Input Meetings Schedule A-5-1 V21_Ap05.pdf
Task Force and Committee Schedules A-6-1 V21_Ap06.pdf
Listing of Task Force and Committee Experts A-7-1 V21_Ap07.pdf
Listing of Task Force and Committee Materials A-8-1 V21_Ap08.pdf
Transportation Open House Schedule A-9-1 V21_Ap09.pdf
Transportation Open House Materials Listing A-10-1 V21_Ap10.pdf
Transportation Open House Comment Tabulations A-11-1 V21_Ap11.pdf
Task Force Newsletter Listing A-12-1 V21_Ap12.pdf
Listing of Other Public Input Received and Additional Resources A-13-1 V21_Ap13.pdf
Executive Orders 1999-2 and 2000-16 A-14-1 V21_Ap14.pdf
Chapter One:
Background and Task Force Charge
Section One:
Task Force Vision, Goals, Findings and
Recommendations
1-1-1
CHAPTER ONE: Background and Task Force Charge
Governor Jane Dee Hull established the
Transportation Vision 21 Task Force in February
1999. Executive Order 99-2, as amended by
Executive Order 2000-16, identified a well-developed,
reliable transportation system as
crucial to the growth and economic vitality of the
State of Arizona and as essential to the
enhancement of intrastate and interstate
commerce.
The Executive Order described an efficient
transportation system as “a comprehensive
network of multimodal components that work
together to provide the orderly transportation of
goods, services and people” and recognized that
the “development, funding and maintenance of
an efficient transportation system is a shared
responsibility” of all governments.
The Executive Order charged the Task Force
with “evaluating current practices, resources,
and infrastructures, and recommending and
prioritizing the goals, funding, and specific plans
that will establish a vision for transportation in
Arizona in the 21st Century”. The Task Force
was also given a variety of specific
responsibilities in the Executive Order.
Specifically the Task Force was directed to:
Identify critical, long-range transportation
needs in both rural and urban areas of this
State…;
Develop preliminary estimates of the long-term
cost of implementing a comprehensive,
multimodal, long-range transportation
system plan and compare the estimated
costs to the estimated revenues from
existing, federal, state, and local
transportation funding streams…;
Identify and recommend planning
approaches and funding strategies to be
used to establish a comprehensive, fully
integrated, multimodal system that serves
the future transportation needs of all of
Arizona…;
Study and recommend guidelines and
procedures for prioritizing Arizona’s
transportation needs and expenditures…;
Review the structures and responsibilities,
with regard to transportation planning, of
transportation agencies throughout the
State; and
Report the consensus findings and
recommendations of the Task Force” by
December 31, 2001.
The Governor appointed thirty-one Task Force
members from throughout the state. Ms Sharon
B. Megdal, Ph.D., of Tucson and Mr. Martin
Shultz of Phoenix were appointed to serve as Co-
Chairs for the Task Force.
The Task Force established three committees to
study various issues in greater detail and to
forward critical information to the full Task Force
as appropriate. The Task Force established the
Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues
Committee, the Governance Committee, and the
Planning and Programming Processes
Committee. The committee membership list is
illustrated inside the front cover. Each
committee developed, adopted, and forwarded
recommendations to the Task Force.
Definition of Needs, Resources and
Revenues Committee
Ms Barbara Ralston serves as Chair and Mr. John
Mawhinney as Vice Chair of the Definition of
Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee.
The Committee charge was as follows:
The Definition of Needs, Resources and
Revenues Committee is responsible for
identifying regionally significant long-range
needs and projects in both rural and urban
areas for the multimodal transportation
system for Arizona in the 21st Century. The
Committee is also examining the projected
transportation revenues for the entire state
of Arizona and evaluating the adequacy of
projected revenues to meet the multimodal
1-1-2
transportation needs in Arizona for the 21st
Century.
Multimodal project definitions and costs, revenue
forecasts, analysis of existing revenue sources
and a proposal of future sources to create a
reliable funding stream are areas that will
receive specific attention and focus by this
Committee.
Governance Committee
Mr. Kurt Davis serves as Chair and Ms Lisa Atkins
as Vice Chair of the Governance Committee.
The Committee charge was as follows:
The Governance Committee is responsible
for examining the structure, role,
responsibilities and interrelationship of each
of the transportation planning and delivery
entities established by state and federal law.
These entities include local government,
tribal governments as well as regional and
state transportation authorities. The
Committee is also charged with evaluating
the structure, role, responsibilities and
interrelationships of each entity as it relates
to the multimodal transportation
infrastructure.
Planning and Programming Process
Committee
Mr. Kevin Olson serves as Chair and Ms Diane
McCarthy as Vice Chair of the Planning and
Programming Committee. The Committee
charge was as follows:
The Planning and Programming Process
Committee is responsible for evaluating the
current transportation planning processes at
the local, regional and statewide levels for
all transportation types and then develop a
foundation for preparing a long-range
(minimum of 20 years) multimodal
transportation plan for the state of Arizona.
This Committee is relying, at least in part,
on presentations from the local, regional,
and state transportation planning and
delivery agencies regarding their areas of
responsibility. The Committee is responsible
for evaluating the processes used in
preparation and application of transportation
planning.
The Committee is also charged with
evaluating project selection, project
prioritization, project development,
effectiveness of the public input process,
and current multimodal transportation
planning documents. They are also
examining whether there are deficiencies
within the current process and
recommending improvements and
modifications to the existing process.
The Task Force worked to identify critical, long-range
transportation needs in Arizona’s rural and
urban areas and to develop preliminary
estimates of the cost to implement a
comprehensive, multimodal, long-range
transportation system plan. These estimated
costs were then compared to the estimated
revenues from existing federal, state and local
transportation funding streams.
The Task Force also worked to identify and
recommend planning approaches and funding
strategies to be used to establish a
comprehensive, fully integrated, multimodal
system to meet the future transportation needs
of all of Arizona. It considered all aspects of
transportation, including but not limited to,
public roadways, highways, bus service,
passenger rail, aviation, bicycle, pedestrian and
travel reduction programs. The Task Force’s
strategies and recommendations address rural
and urban transportation issues, as well as
freight concerns throughout the State.
The Task Force studied and has developed
recommendations for prioritizing Arizona’s
transportation needs and expenditures in
relationship to the responsibilities of state,
county, city and tribal governments, as well as
state, regional, and local planning agencies. The
Task Force reviewed the transportation planning
structure and responsibilities of the State
Transportation Board, the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT), local governments
throughout the State, and local planning
agencies.
1-1-3
The Task Force submitted an Interim Report to
the Governor on December 15, 1999. Both the
Interim Report and this report contain consensus
findings and recommendations of the Task
Force. As directed in the Executive Order, this
report will be made available to Arizona’s
Congressional delegation, the members of the
Arizona State Legislature, state, county, local,
and tribal transportation departments, the
State’s universities and the private sector
(including community and citizen groups).
Information concerning the Task Force may be
obtained at the Task Force office within ADOT at
206 S. 17th Avenue, 310B, Phoenix, Arizona
85007, at the Task Force website,
http://www.dot.state.az.us/vision21, or by e-mail
at vision21@dot.state.az.us.
Chapter Two:
Task Force Goals and Vision
Section One:
Task Force Vision, Goals, Findings and
Recommendations
1-2-1
CHAPTER TWO: Task Force Goals and Vision
Task Force Retreat and Goal
Development Process
Task Force members met for two days in Casa
Grande during March 2000 to discuss their
individual and collective vision of Arizona’s
transportation system and their goals for the
Task Force.
The Task Force initially discussed the “best” and
“worst” aspects of Arizona’s transportation
system and then identified possible changes to
the system that might be considered in the
course of the Task Force’s work.
The members met in their assigned committees
to discuss and identify their key issues and
subjects. Each committee identified a series of
ideas, issues and proposals, which were then
grouped into three ranking categories. The
results of these committee deliberations were
reported to the Task Force at large and those
items included in the highest priority category
were blended into a draft list of Task Force
transportation system goals. The overall system
goals were then individually discussed, modified
and accepted by the members present. The
Task Force identified its major goals for Arizona’s
transportation system, along with a preamble
that appears below.
Identified Overall Transportation
System Goals
Arizona must have an efficient, multimodal
transportation system that contributes to
the overall quality of life of its citizens and
serves the future transportation needs of
the entire state. The transportation system
should address the following goals identified
by the Governor’s Vision 21 Transportation
Task Force.
The principal long-range expectations for
Arizona’s Transportation System are
mobility, connectivity, economic vitality,
reliability and system preservation.
The roles and responsibilities of all
participants in the system (including state
government, local governments, tribal
governments and regional planning
entities) should be determined, integrated
and better coordinated. Planning,
programming, and reporting processes
must be integrated to ensure a sustainable
and reliable system.
All federally funded state and local
transportation programs should be
incorporated into the transportation
planning, programming and reporting
processes.
The governance of the system must
establish clear accountability and
strengthen public confidence in the
system. Planning, funding (including
taxation), implementation and
performance monitoring responsibilities
should be linked to achieve this goal.
The planning and programming processes
should facilitate integration of all modes.
These processes should optimize each
mode’s strengths and minimize inter-modal
conflicts.
Clear responsibility and authority for the
transportation system should be
established to encourage greater
coordination and consistency. These
responsibilities and authorities should be
consistent with any recommended
governance structure.
Consistent, minimum statewide standards
for quality and performance should be
established. Based on these standards,
system performance should be measured
and reported.
1-2-2
The overall system must have consistent,
reliable, adequate, dedicated, but flexible,
funding. All available sources, including
federal funds, financing innovations,
private sources and public-private
partnerships, should be explored to
maximize funding for the system.
Dedicated transportation taxing authority
should be established or expanded.
Emphasis must be placed on operation and
maintenance of system assets to protect
the investment and to improve overall
utilization of the system.
Comprehensive financial management
processes (including revenue forecasting
techniques and expenditure management
techniques) should be expanded to all
aspects of the system.
In order to be effective, land use plans
must consider state and regional
transportation plans, especially with
respect to future transportation corridors.
In turn, state and regional transportation
plans should recognize local land use
plans. The coordination and consideration
of the overlaying transportation system
plans and land use plans by all affected
jurisdictions will increase the usefulness
and benefits of those plans and will help
avoid unintended conflicts in the future.
Chapter Three:
Task Force Findings
Section One:
Task Force Vision, Goals, Findings and
Recommendations
1-3-1
Projected Population and Vehicle Travel Growth
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
1990 1995 2000 2015 2020 Population,
Registered
Vehicles and
Licensed Drivers
20,000,000
80,000,000
140,000,000
200,000,000
Daily Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Population Registered Vehicles Licensed Drivers DVMT
CHAPTER THREE: Task Force Findings
Through the course work of the Task Force
and its three committees, hundreds of
documents and information sources
pertaining to transportation within Arizona
and elsewhere have been collected,
reviewed, presented, and discussed. This
chapter summarizes some of the
information and materials from some of
those sources.
Transportation System Demands
Roads and Highways
The demands on Arizona’s transportation
system have grown and will continue to
grow. Arizona’s current transportation
system cannot handle the projected
population growth and increasing travel
demand.
The State of Arizona has experienced
tremendous population growth and economic
development over the past half century. The
State has grown from 750,000 people in 1950
to over five million in 2000. Our state’s
population is expected to grow by 48% over
the next 20 years. By 2020 Arizona’s
population is expected to exceed 7.4 million
people.1 Exhibit A illustrates the projected
population growth of Arizona’s counties, cities,
and towns from 1990 through 2020.
In 1975, there were 2.1 million people living in
Arizona, 1.5 million registered vehicles, and 1
million licensed drivers. In 1985, Arizona’s
population had reached 3.3 million, there were
2.5 million registered vehicles, and 2 million
licensed drivers. In 1996, Arizona’s population
had grown to 4.2 million people, there were 3.5
million registered vehicles, and 3 million licensed
drivers. Today, there are an estimated 5.3
million people residing in our State, over 4.6
million registered cars, and 3.6 million licensed
drivers. Based on these historical data, it is
estimated that there will be 6.4 million vehicles
registered in the State by 2020 and there will be
over 5 million licensed drivers.1, 2
Currently, the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
per day in Arizona is approximately 129 million
miles. Motorists in the metropolitan Phoenix
area are driving approximately 60 million miles
per weekday. This number is expected to grow
to 95 million miles per weekday by 2020. In
the metropolitan Tucson area, motorists are
driving approximately 18 million miles per
weekday. Daily VMT in the metropolitan
Tucson area is expected to grow to 27 million
miles per weekday by 2020. The following
graph illustrates actual and projected growth in
population, vehicle registrations, daily VMT and
licensed drivers in Arizona from 1990 to 2020.
Figure 1-3-1
Source: Population Data: Arizona Department of Economic Security
DVMT Data: Arizona Department of Transportation, Booz-Allen analysis, 1998 Transportation Factbook, ADOT
1-3-2
Existing and future congestion on state and
local roadways will hinder Arizona’s
economy and threaten the quality of life for
our citizens and visitors.
Congestion on our major state highways is
increasing toward unacceptable levels of
service. For example, average daily traffic
(ADT) volumes along some sections of
Interstate 10 between Phoenix and Tucson
have increased dramatically in recent years and
will reach unacceptable levels by 2006. Traffic
volumes along this stretch of interstate are
expected to double over the next 20 years.6
Exhibit B illustrates the level of congestion that
currently exists on Arizona’s major highways.
Congestion in the metropolitan Phoenix area will
reach severe levels, especially during peak
commuter hours, without additional investment
in the system. In 1995, the average speed
during the evening peak hours was 30 miles per
hour. This will drop drastically to 16 miles per
hour without significant transportation system
improvements, which require an increase in
funding. The slower average speed will result in
a 1,000% increase in total hours of delay
during the evening rush hour.7 Exhibit C
contains a map indicating the heavily congested
intersections in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
Within the metropolitan Tucson area, numerous
major arterial streets have reached
unacceptable congestion levels during the
evening peak hours. The following are some of
Tucson’s most congested corridors:I-10,
Houghton Road, Kolb Road, Campbell Avenue,
Grant Road, River Road, Oracle Road, Ina
Road/Sunrise Drive, Cortaro Road, and La
Cholla Boulevard.8 Exhibit D contains a map
indicating the heavily congested intersections in
the Tucson metropolitan area. Without
additional investment, congestion in the area
will reach catastrophic levels. Vehicle trips per
day are expected to reach 3.6 million in 2020,
compared to 2.1 million vehicle trips per day in
1995. Over the next 20 years, congested
conditions are expected to exist on 70% of
metropolitan Tucson’s roadways.8
A recent study by the Texas Transportation
Institute (TTI) indicated that congestion in 68
metropolitan areas across the county in 1999
resulted in a $78 billion loss in job productivity,
4.5 billion hours of delay and 6.8 billion gallons
of wasted fuel.5
The TTI study found that on average motorists
in the Phoenix area spent 31 hours idling in
traffic in 1999 and the average Tucson area
motorist spent up to 23 hours in 1999 in traffic
delays. The study found that congestion in the
Phoenix area cost $540 per capita when
considering lost time and increased gas
expense. The study found that congestion in
the Tucson area cost $395 per capita.5
In the TTI study, the Phoenix metropolitan area
was ranked 31st in annual congestion costs per
capita, even though this region was ranked as
the 13th largest metropolitan area evaluated by
the study.
The TTI study found that areas with significant
freeway expansion (e.g. the Maricopa Regional
Freeway System) experienced slower growth in
congestion than metropolitan regions that did
not undertake substantial roadway expansion
programs.
Recent public opinion polls throughout the State
indicate that growing traffic congestion is one
of the major concerns for citizens and that
finding ways to ease congestion and reduce
travel time is a top priority. Input from the
Task Force’s statewide telephone survey,
Modified Focus Groups, and the public
Transportation Open Houses throughout the
state reinforced the results from recent public
opinion polls on transportation.
A recent Tucson poll indicated that 40% of
respondents indicated that increasing the ease
and speed of travel is of foremost importance
and 55% of the respondents stated that
transportation is not adequately funded.
A recent KAET poll indicated that 67% of
Arizona residents believe that congestion is a
serious problem that needs to be reduced.
Traffic congestion is a growing problem
throughout Arizona. Exhibit E lists congested
intersections in the state that should be
improved with existing and future
transportation revenues.3
1-3-3
Even without the full implementation of the
North American Free Trade Agreement,
Arizona’s three major ports of entry (Nogales,
Douglas and San Luis) have experienced a 10%
growth in the number of commercial vehicles
crossing each year.9
Commercial vehicle traffic (vehicles weighing
more than 26,000 pounds) on key interstate
highways in Arizona has more than doubled
over the decade and this trend is expected to
continue. The following table illustrates this
trend:
Table 1-3-1
Annual Commercial Vehicle Counts
(Trucks > 26,000 Gross Vehicle Weight)
I-8 I-10 I-17 I-19 I-40
1990 39,989 948,200 307,200 31,400 313,300
1995 39,234 1,567,100 486,400 38,600 364,000
2000 61,900 2,002,700 598,800 80,200 610,700
Source: ADOT Transportation Planning Division
New engine technology, cleaner fuels, and
pending federal standards should greatly
reduce vehicle emission levels in the near
future, although air quality will remain an
important consideration in developing
transportation plans.
Automobile emissions have dropped
dramatically since the 1960s and emissions will
continue to decline in the years ahead.
The following table illustrates the significant
improvements in auto emissions standards,
since 1960.
Table 1-3-2
Auto Emission Standards
Grams of Emission per Mile Traveled
Model Year Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxide
1960 10.600 84.000 4.100
1970 4.100 34.000 5.000
1975 1.500 15.000 3.100
1980 0.410 7.000 2.000
1981 0.410 3.400 1.000
1983 0.410 3.400 1.000
1994 (Tier 1) 0.310 4.200 0.600
2004 (Tier 2) 0.125 4.200 0.200
Source: 1997 Arizona Transportation Research Center Study
1-3-4
Sulfur is the primary element that causes the
emission of black soot from diesel engines. The
Environmental Protection’s Agency (EPA) has
proposed new rules to cut sulfur content in
diesel fuel by 95% effective June 2006.
Beginning in 2007, diesel engine makers will
have three years to produce engines that cut
the emission of nitrogen oxide by 97% and
particulate matter by 90%.
Several transit buses, powered by hydrogen fuel
cells (that emit only water vapor) are being
tested and used in British Columbia, Canada.
Transit officials believe that these hydrogen-powered
buses will be utilized more by
municipalities throughout the county over the
next 10 years as this new technology becomes
more affordable.21
General Motors is test driving a hydrogen-powered
minivan at its test facility in Gilbert,
Arizona. This zero emissions vehicle utilizes
fuel cell technology to convert hydrogen into
electricity. Test results indicate that the
minivan’s performance and fuel economy is
similar to a gasoline-powered van. The
hydrogen-powered minivan emits only water
vapor. General Motors anticipates that these
hydrogen-powered vehicles will be available to
the public in the next 10 years (General Motors
Desert Proving Ground).
“Smart car” technology should enhance
traffic safety and increase roadway
capacity over the next 20 years.
Several U.S. auto manufacturers are developing
and testing intelligent vehicles that can drive
themselves using on-board computers, radar
technology and sensors that follow magnets
embedded in a roadway. These “smart cars”
are being sold and operated in some areas of
Denmark and Japan.
Within the next few years, collision warning and
crash avoidance systems will be standard
equipment or optional features in new cars.
These systems are an extension of cruise
control systems that have been common in
most vehicles for many years. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has
estimated that over 500,000 crashes could be
avoided annually and close to 10,000 lives
saved, with the full deployment of these
systems. Additionally, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration has set a goal of a 50%
reduction in fatalities from heavy truck crashes
through the use of this intelligent vehicle
technology.25
ADOT is currently testing new snowplows that
are guided by computer technology that reads
magnets embedded in the roadway. Full
deployment of this technology will significantly
reduce the time to clear snow on state
highways.11
Transit
Public transit serves several different
functions in Arizona. It provides mobility
to persons without access to an automobile
and to those who do not drive. It provides
important links between rural communities
and metropolitan areas. In general, over
the last five years, transit ridership in the
Phoenix Metropolitan area has increased
by 7%; decreased by 10% in the Tucson
Metropolitan area; and increased slightly in
other areas of the State.
Private intercity bus service operates along the
major travel corridors in Arizona. Passenger
service is available in 83 communities and
connects these cities with other urbanized areas
in Arizona and other states.2 Exhibit F shows
the major intercity bus corridors in Arizona and
the average number of daily round trips.2
The major east-west interstate routes through
Arizona -- I-40 in the north and I-10 and I-8 in
the south -- resulted in frequent service along
these corridors. Travel between California and
Texas, the two most populous states, has a
greater influence on the levels of service on
these routes more than demand within
Arizona.2
Routes operating between California and Texas
run primarily on I-10, while those serving San
Diego split off to I-8. Service between
Albuquerque, New Mexico and Las Vegas,
Nevada operates on I-40.
Demand for north-south service from Mexico
supports a high level of service on the I-19/I-10
corridor, particularly from Nogales to Phoenix.2
1-3-5
Statewide Transportation for the
Elderly and Disabled – Section 5310
Program
The Section 5310 Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) program provides assistance in meeting
the transportation needs of elderly persons and
persons with disabilities where public
transportation services are unavailable or
insufficient.2 This program provides capital
assistance for transportation to private non-profit
organizations, Indian tribes and some
public agencies statewide. The program is
administered by ADOT and coordinated at the
regional level by the Councils of Governments
and Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Exhibit G illustrates the Section 5310 service
locations within Arizona.2 The following table
shows various statistics of the Section 5310
Program.
Table 1-3-3
Section 5310 Program Statistics
1996 2000 % of Difference
Vehicles 87 93 + 7%
Vehicle miles 880,280 972,075 +10%
Passenger trips 341,340 377,100 +10%
Total cost $2,321,999 $2,788,000 +12%
Cost per vehicle $26,689 $29,978 +12%
Cost per passenger trip $6.80 $7.39 +9%
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Group, Transit Team
Transportation for Rural and Small
Urban Areas – Section 5311 Program
The FTA’s Section 5311 program provides
capital, administrative and operating assistance
for public transportation programs in rural and
small urban areas (under 50,000 population).2
This program is administered by ADOT.
Councils of Governments review and comment
on applications received for projects in their
planning areas. Exhibit G also illustrates the
Section 5311 service locations.2 The following
table shows various statistics of the Section
5311 Program:
Table 1-3-4
Section 5311 Program Statistics
1996 2000 % of Difference
Passenger trips 490,516 517,861 +6%
Passenger (project) miles 1,647,196 1,727,441 +5%
Total cost $2,845,790 $3,537,836 +24%
Farebox recovery ratio 0.22 0.22 0%
Cost/passenger trip $5.80 $8.30 +43%
Fare/passenger trip $1.14 $1.88 +65%
Cost/project mile $1.72 $2.56 +49%
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Group, Transit Team
1-3-6
Phoenix Metropolitan Area Transit
Services
The Regional Public Transportation Authority
(RPTA) provides a structure to enable the
various cities in Maricopa County to operate a
coordinated public transit system. Phoenix,
Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Chandler, Peoria,
Gilbert, Glendale, Avondale, El Mirage and
Maricopa County participate in RPTA.2
Fixed route and demand response transit
services funded by these jurisdictions and
regional services funded through RPTA operate
as Valley Metro.2 The following table shows
various statistics of the Valley Metro transit
system.
Table 1-3-5
RPTA Transit Statistics
1996 2000 Difference
Size of fleet 468 buses 589 buses +26%
Average vehicle age 9.48 years 6.03 years -36%
System capacity 16,833 seats 21,358 seats +26%
Passengers 35,028,406 37,496,804 + 7%
Passengers per vehicle hour 39.40 29.55 -25%
Passengers per vehicle mile 2.56 2.08 -19%
Operating cost per passenger $1.51 $1.99 +32%
Operating cost per vehicle mile $3.86 $4.14 + 7%
Revenue per passenger $0.55 $0.61 +11%
Farebox recovery ratio 36.4 30.8 -15%
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, 1997 Transit Plan and Regional Public Transportation Authority
Tucson Metropolitan Area Transit
Service
The City of Tucson and Pima County fund most
transit services in the Tucson metropolitan
area.2
The City of Tucson oversees the operation of
Sun Tran which services Tucson, South Tucson,
the Town of Oro Valley and the unincorporated
portions of Pima County. Pima County operates
specialized services in he unincorporated
areas.2
Intergovernmental agreements are in place to
provide service outside city limits. Pima County
operates specialized services in the
unincorporated county area, regional services
from Marana to Tucson, Ajo to Tucson, and
demand response services in Ajo.2
The following table shows various statistics of
the Tucson Sun Tran transit system.
1-3-7
Table 1-3-6
Sun Tran Transit Statistics
1996 2000 Difference
Passengers 16,170,758 14,513,188 -10%
Miles of service 7,788,943 7,771,459 - 2%
Farebox revenue $6,030,214 $7,267,371 +21%
Operating costs $22,498,947 $30,804,320 +37%
Passengers per vehicle mile 2.08 1.87 -10%
Operating cost per passenger $1.39 $2.12 +53%
Operation subsidy per passenger $1.02 $1.62 +59%
Farebox recovery ratio 26.8 23.6 -12%
Source: Tucson Sun Tran
Table 1-3-7
Flagstaff Transit Statistics
FY 2002 FY 2005 % Difference
Size of Fleet 6 16 +167%
Passengers 1 2 +233%
Passengers/Vehicle Hour 150,000 500,000 +36%
Operating Cost/Passenger 4.22 3.73 -12%
Operating Cost/Mile 3.30 3.30 0%
Revenue Per Passenger .75 .75 0%
Farebox Recovery Ratio 17% 20% 18%
Source: City of Flagstaff
Flagstaff Metropolitan Area Transit
System, Mountain Line
Mountain Line, unlike other systems in the
State, is a new transit service, which began in
October 2001. The City of Flagstaff passed a
transit tax in May 2000 and the above plan
(Table 1-3-7) is being implemented over the
next four years.
Local Transit Assistance Fund II
(LTAF II)
The state’s transit assistance program
(LTAF II) has supported essential
transportation service in rural communities
throughout the state.
The Local Transportation Assistance Fund II
(LTAF II) was created by state legislation in
1998. LTAF II was originally funded with federal
Surface Transportation Program monies
received by ADOT. In 2000, use was restricted
to transit, unless a jurisdiction’s allocation is
less than $2,500 per year.
Today, LTAF II is funded through State General
Fund appropriations and a portion of PowerBall
lottery proceeds. The program is capped at
$18 million annually, however, only $7.5 million
was appropriated by the Arizona Legislature for
FY 2002.13 Exhibit H summarizes the maximum
amount each county or municipality could
receive in FY 2000 under the $18 million cap.
The program is scheduled to sunset on October
1, 2003, with the expiration of the current
Federal Transportation Reauthorization Act
(TEA-21).
1-3-8
In the beginning, some jurisdictions were
hesitant to start up new transit service or
services for special needs populations (para-transit
service) with their LTAF II allocations
because of the uncertainty surrounding future
LTAF II funding (legislative appropriation and
lottery sales). Recently, many jurisdictions
have pooled their LTAF II allocations to
establish new transit routes or para-transit
service.3
ADOT has worked with rural communities to
leverage their LTAF II allocations with federal
Section 5310 (Elderly and Persons with
Disabilities) and Section 5311 (Rural Public
Transportation) programs. The State
Transportation Board allocated $5 million in FY
2000 for jurisdictions that use 100% of LTAF II
for transit purposes.3
The following are some examples of how
different municipalities have pooled their LTAF
II allocations to operate transit and para-transit
services3:
Phoenix Metropolitan Area: Avondale,
Goodyear, Litchfield Park, and Tolleson have
established the Southwest Transit and Regional
Transportation (START) route. Prior to START,
residents in the southwest part of the Phoenix
metropolitan region did not have local transit
service. START provides service to Estrella
Mountain Community College, Desert Sky
Mall,and the Desert Sky Park & Ride Lot, where
commuters can access express bus service.
Average monthly ridership has grown from 95
daily passengers in the first year to 165 in
2001. In FY 2000, $194,584 in LTAF II
revenues were used to support START. In the
past, federal appropriations of $400,000 have
also supported this transit service.
Southeastern Arizona: Huachuca City and
Tombstone use their LTAF II monies to partner
with the Sierra Vista Transit System. This
partnership enables senior citizens in
Tombstone and Huachuca City to travel to
Sierra Vista two days a week.
Northeastern Arizona: Show Low, Pinetop-
Lakeside, and Navajo County use their LTAF II
allocation to fund the Four Seasons Connection
Transit System. The System has experienced
significant growth in ridership, especially
among disabled and wheelchair riders.
Central Yavapai Region: Prescott, Prescott
Valley, Chino Valley, and Yavapai County have
combined their LTAF II allocations to fund a
voucher transit system. This system is
administered by the Northern Arizona Council
Of Governments (NACOG) and provides
transportation to the elderly, disabled, low
income and youth populations. The system
enables clients to select from an approved list
of private sector providers and redeem
vouchers for qualified trip purposes such as:
employment, job search, medical visits, social
service agency visits, education, and basic
transportation needs. From April through July
2001, 13,514 trips were provided by this
voucher transit system.
Light Rail Transit Service
Maricopa County Region
The Phoenix 2000 transit tax is expected to
provide $1.654 billion over a 20-year period to
help fund the construction and operation of a
light rail transit system
In October 2001, the Federal Transit
Administration approved the first $1.1 billion
project that will link Central Phoenix to Tempe
and Mesa. The first 20.3-mile segment is due
to be completed in 2006. By 2020, estimated
ridership on this initial segment is expected to
be 48,000 passengers per day. The map on
the following page illustrates the light rail
corridor.
The recently approved Glendale transportation
tax is expected to generate approximately $170
million for the development of a light rail transit
system that links with the Phoenix system near
Chris Town Mall (at approximately 15th Avenue
and Bethany Home Road in Phoenix).
Other area cities, including Scottsdale, Tempe,
and Chandler are evaluating extending the
proposed light rail system to their communities.
Scottsdale and Tempe have funded a $750,000
study on a possible north-south link and
Chandler is conducting a $240,000 feasibility
study.
1-3-9
Tucson Region
In 1993, an historic trolley system was
reactivated providing transit service between
the University of Arizona and the Fourth Avenue
Business District. The 1.1mile long trolley
system currently operates only on Fridays,
Saturdays and Sundays along with school
charters. The trolley system and currently
carries an average of 20-25,000 riders each
year.
According to the Old Pueblo Trolley (OPT), the
non-profit organization that operates the
system, there is a desire to provide full-time
service (seven days a week, 18 hours per day).
Current plans will expand the track from Fourth
Avenue along Congress Street to the Tucson
Convention Center. The capital cost for this
expansion is approximately $5 million for rail
infrastructure and $3 million for 12 new or
restored trolleys. The operational cost of this
expanded service is $600,000 per year.
An organization known as Tucsonans for
Sensible Transportation (TST) is advocating for
the construction of a 13 mile light rail transit
system be included as part of a potential
Tucson transportation tax election. TST
estimates that the capital cost of this system to
be $35 million per mile for a total of $455
million with federal funding paying for 60% of
the capital costs. The estimated annual
operational costs are $4 million. The estimated
daily ridership of the system is expected to be
30,000 per day.14
Aviation
Air passenger service is expected to
increase dramatically in the two large
metropolitan areas over the next 20 years.
Air cargo service and general aviation are
expected to increase throughout Arizona
over the next 20 years.
Over the next 20 years, total passenger arrivals
and departures on commercial aircraft flying
into and from Sky Harbor International and
Tucson International airports are expected to
increase 79% to a combined total of nearly 36
million passengers, annually.15
1-3-10
Over the past five years, the number of
general aviation aircraft based within Arizona
has increased by 9.7%. This sustained growth
in general aviation usage is expected to
continue with an estimated increase of more
than 30% in total-based aircraft over the next
20 years.15
The tonnage of cargo passing through Sky
Harbor International Airport Air increases each
year. In 1996, approximately 297,000 tons of
cargo went through this facility. In 2005, about
600,000 tons of air cargo are expected to be
handled at Sky Harbor and over 1,000,000 tons
of air cargo are expected in 2015.16
While there are a number of unique factors
affecting the growth of air cargo at Tucson
International Airport (e.g. trade activity with
Mexico), Tucson Airport officials anticipate that
air cargo tonnage will more than double by
2020. Approximately 31,000 tons of air cargo
went through this facility in 2000 and the
amount of tonnage projected for 2020 is over
75,000 tons.17
The 1999 Arizona Small Community Economic
Development and Transportation Study
(ASCET) indicated that expanding runway
lengths, installing advanced air-to-ground
communication systems and constructing other
supporting infrastructure such as refrigerated
hangers would enhance air cargo service to
communities throughout Arizona, including,
Safford, Kingman, Casa Grande and Yuma.1
Freight Rail
Transportation of manufactured goods and
raw materials via freight rail will increase
substantially over the next 20 years.
Currently, between 60 and 70 trains per day
move freight along the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe main line in northern Arizona. Rail
freight movement along the Union Pacific main
line in southern Arizona is in the range of 40 to
50 trains each day. In the next five to ten
years, daily train movements along both of
these mainline corridors are expected to
increase by 15 to 20%. 3
ADOT, state and regional studies indicate that
traffic congestion is a growing problem at
several key at-grade roadway/railroad
crossings, especially in Flagstaff and Pima
County. There are a number of rail crossing
sites that are candidates for grade separation
improvements. In the Flagstaff region, Lone
Tree Road/Elden Street, Enterprise Road, and
4th Street. In the Tucson Region: Tangerine
Road, Cortaro Farms Road, Ina Road, Prince,
6th Street, Ruthrauff, Craycroft/Wilmot Road,
Kolb Road, and Houghton Road. In the Phoenix
region, there are eight grade separated
interchanges scheduled for construction along
Grand Avenue over the next seven years. 3
The City of Nogales also has a very acute
railroad problem. Since 1994, the number of
northbound rail cars passing through downtown
Nogales each year has more than doubled. In
2000, 48,305 rail cars passed through Nogales.
Some trains are as long as 7,500 feet, which
blocks up to 3 street intersections at one time.19
Travel Reduction Strategies
Commuter travel in the two large
metropolitan areas is a small percentage of
total VMT and total daily trips. Commuter
travel is defined as the daily trip an
employee makes from his or her residence
to their primary place of employment.
According to the MAG model, commuter trips
represent only 20% of total daily trips and only
33% of the total daily VMT in the Maricopa
County region.
According to the PAG model, commuter trips
represent only 19% of total daily trips and only
19% of total daily VMT in the Pima County
region. The PAG model indicates that these
percentages of commuter travel to total travel
are not expected to change much over the next
25 years.
Formal travel reduction programs in the
Maricopa County Pima County regions have
existed since the 1980s. Research indicates
that greater utilization of some travel
reduction strategies can reduce regional
Vehicle Miles of Travel and provide minor
air quality improvements.
1-3-11
Travel Reduction Programs - General
According to the 2000 census, 1.6 million of the
2.2 million workers in Arizona (older than 16)
commute to work by themselves in trucks, vans
or cars; nearly 326,000 carpool; and 47,000 use
public transportation including taxis. About
47,000 walk to work and 78,000 work out of
their houses.20,21
In 2000, 248 employer sites and 110,292
employees were included with the Pima County
Regional Travel Reduction Program. In 2000,
about 31.62% of these employees participated
in some aspect of a travel reduction program.22
In 2000, 1,200 employers with 2,400 employer
sites were included within the Maricopa County
Regional Travel Reduction Program. These
companies employ over 600,000 workers. In
2000, only 33% of the participating major
employer sites met their travel reduction
goals.23
State Bus Card Subsidy Program
Since 1994, the State of Arizona has provided a
bus pass subsidy for state employees within the
Phoenix and Tucson regions. The subsidy has
ranged between 50% and 100% of the rider’s
cost and is currently 65%. The subsidy is
available for both public and private mass
transit operations under contract with the state.
Currently, only one private firm is participating
in this program. The following table
summarizes key information about this State
program.2
Table 1-3-8
Travel Reduction Subsidy Information FY 2000-2001
Average Monthly Ridership Average Monthly Subsidy
Bus Card Plus Subsidies
(Valley Metro) 2,040 $29,400
Bus Subsidies (Sun Tran) 58 $1,050
Private Bus Subsidies 17 $260
Vanpool Subsidies 278 $5,500
Source: State of Arizona Travel Reduction Office
The Federal Commuter Choice Program
provides employers with a tax credit of up to
$65 for each employee that utilizes transit or a
vanpool program. Utilization of the program
has been limited because the tax credits are
minimal and the employer’s administrative time
requirements are substantial .22
Dial-a-Ride or Jitney Service
A recent survey indicates that 23% of Dial-a-
Ride customers in the Phoenix metropolitan
areas waited for more than two hours for a ride
at least once in the prior six months.
Nevertheless, this para-transit service is heavily
utilized, especially in the Phoenix metropolitan
area. In this region, more than 660,000
persons used Dial-a-Ride in the Phoenix
metropolitan area in FY 2000.21
Currently, there is no general Dial-a-Ride
program in the metropolitan Tucson area,
however, there is a service know as “Van Tran”
which provides transportation service to Tucson
residents for certain eligible purposes. In 2000,
Van Tran provided approximately 310,000 trips
in the Tucson region.22
According to the Yuma Metropolitan Planning
Organization, Dial-a-Ride in the Yuma region
turns away an average of 125 general transit
passengers per day.25
1-3-12
Ridesharing
Recent surveys indicate that approximately 15%
of employees participate in a rideshare program
at least once a week in the Phoenix region and
16% of employees rideshare at least once each
week in the Tucson region. According to recent
U.S. Census Bureau data, Arizona ranks 2nd in
the U.S. for carpooling.21,22
Currently, 22% or 298,000 commuters carpool
one or more days each week, with the average
for these individuals being 3.1 days per week in
the metropolitan Phoenix area. A 10% increase
in rideshare participation (at least once each
week) would reduce commuter VMT by 230,200
miles per day and 58.7 million miles per year.
Carpool commuters in the region save 2.3
million miles per day or 83,000 pounds of
pollution per day.21
Telecommuting
Data from the 1990 census indicates that there
were approximately 600,000 commuters in
Phoenix and 100,000 commuters in Tucson,
whose jobs are conducive to telecommuting,21,22
A 1999 survey indicated that 66% of Phoenix
area business owners feel there is potential for
establishing a telecommuting program among
their employees.21
According to RPTA surveys, about 135,000
persons currently telecommute or work at home
one day or more per week. (This figure
excludes home-based and self-employed
workers). These employees telecommute on
average 2.7 days each week. This represents a
doubling of employee participation in
telecommuting since 1996.21 A 1997 study
indicated that if 25% of eligible employees
telecommuted one day a week, commuter
weekday VMT would be reduced by 372,600
miles in the Phoenix region and 59,940 miles in
the Tucson region.4 However, this is less than
a 2/10ths of 1% reduction in VMT.
Seventy-one state agencies located in Maricopa
County have reported that over 15% of their
employees telecommute one or more days per
week.24
The Pima County 2000 Trip Reduction Program
survey indicates a 195% increase in
telecommuting over 1999 data, with 3,906
participating employees.22
Flex-time and Compressed Workweek
Programs
Recent market research conducted for RPTA
indicates that 122,000 employees in the
Phoenix region participate in a compressed
workweek program, where the number of hours
per day is increased to reduce the number of
work days each week (e.g. four ten hour days
rather than five eight hour days). It is
estimated that 20,898 employees currently
participate in one of these alternative work
schedule programs in the Tucson region.21,22
According to RPTA, a 10% increase in utilization
of flex-time or a compressed workweek
schedule would reduce commuter VMT by
81,500 miles per weekday or 407,000 per
workweek in the Phoenix region. A 10%
increase in this travel reduction strategy in the
Tucson region would reduce commuter VMT by
26,000 miles per week.21,22
Proximate Commuting
A 1997 study conducted by the Arizona
Transportation Research Center indicated that
about 40% of commuters in the Phoenix region
work for multi-site employers and 60% of these
multi-site employees do not work at the site
nearest their home. The study indicated that
transferring 10% of these eligible employees to
a work location nearer their home would reduce
their daily VMT by 65% or a total estimated
commuter VMT reduction of 359,000 miles.4
The 1997 study also indicated that if
approximately 4,200 eligible employees
participated in a “proximate commuting”
program, regional weekday commuter VMT
would be reduced by 57,000 miles.4
Bicycling or Walking
There are approximately 31,000 miles of paved
roads available for bicycling statewide. On the
State Highway System there are approximately
1-3-13
6,000 miles of roadway with shoulders available
for bicycling. About 1,000 of these miles are
Interstate routes (excluding 154 miles of
Interstate where bicycling is prohibited).
Approximately 2,800 miles (47%) of the State
Highway System are designated as more
suitable for bicycling and the remaining 3,200
miles (53%) are rated as less suitable for
bicycling.2
The Tucson region has 425 miles of signed bike
routes, six miles of separated bike lanes, 50
miles of urban shared use paths and 7.5 miles
of bus shared use lanes for a total of 488.5
miles of bikeways, according to PAG.
In Arizona, the majority of bicycling takes place
in the urban areas of Phoenix, Tucson,
Flagstaff, Prescott and Yuma. The table below
indicates the current number of bikeway miles
in each of these regions.
Maricopa County travel reduction surveys of
major employers indicate that 10,797
employees ride their bikes to work at least once
each week. Surveys by the MAG Regional
Bicycle Task Force indicate that as many as
45,000 persons commute to work via bicycle.
On average, these persons bicycle to work 3.3
days per week. These surveys also indicate
that 67,000 persons walk to work one or more
days per week. They walk to work an average
of 3.5 days per week.21,22
RPTA estimates that a 10% increase in bicycle
commuting by eligible employees in the Phoenix
metropolitan area would reduce commuter VMT
by 28,900 miles per day.21
Surveys in the Tucson area indicate that 2,561
employees used a bike to commute to work at
least once each week in 2000. This is a 4%
decrease over the previous year. These 2000
surveys indicate that 2,140 employees walk to
work. This represents a 6% increase over the
previous year.22
A 10% increase in bicycle commuting by eligible
employees in the Tucson region would reduce
commuter VMT by 1,275 miles per week.2
Table 1-3-9
Bikeway Miles
Region On Street Bikeways Urban and Suburban Off Road
Phoenix 1034.15 miles 310.41 miles
Tucson 438.5 miles 50 miles
Flagstaff 25 miles 22 miles
Prescott Data unavailable Data unavailable
Yuma Data unavailable Data unavailable
Transportation System Priorities
Pavement Preservation
State and national studies indicate that
pavement preservation programs can
extend the life of streets and highways and
avoid costly roadway reconstruction.
In 1977, the Utah Department of Transportation
documented that for every $1 invested in early
preventive treatment of roadway pavement
approximately $3 in costs is avoided on
subsequent major rehabilitation.10
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
determined that the costs to repair deteriorated
pavement are four times the cost of applying a
thin surface treatment at the proper time,
before major deterioration occurs.26
An analysis conducted in 1996, by the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, of 60
1-3-14
different agencies throughout the US and
Canada found that $1 invested in preventive
maintenance at the appropriate time will save
$3 to $4 dollars in future rehabilitation costs.
This analysis also found that the use of
preventive maintenance programs, at the
appropriate time, extended the life of asphalt
concrete pavement by 5 to 6 years and the life
of portland cement concrete pavement by 9 to
10 years.26
ADOT officials conservatively estimate that an
additional $15 million is need each year to
maintain state highway pavements at minimally
acceptable conditions.3, 11 Exhibit I contains a
map and table that illustrates the classification
and pavement condition of Arizona’s highways.
A thorough review of regional, county and local
transportation plans indicates that pavement
preservation on local streets and county
roadways is not adequately funded. The Task
Force’s Needs Consultants conservatively
estimate that an additional $2 to $3 billion is
needed over the next 20 years to bring local
and county roads up to minimally acceptable
levels.27
Low Cost Congestion Relief Strategies
A variety of cost-effective, transportation
system improvements could be
implemented to enhance mobility and
relieve congestion in growing urban areas,
especially in the two large metropolitan
areas.
Regional Traffic Light Synchronization
The Institute of Transportation Engineers
estimates traffic signal improvements can
reduce travel times between 8% and 25%.
Advancements in traffic light technology also
reduces vehicle emissions and fuel
consumption.10
Advanced traffic light technology is being
implemented in both the Tucson and Phoenix
areas, to a very limited extent. Substantial
opportunities remain in both regions. The City
of Tempe is currently testing a real-time,
adaptive traffic signal system. The City of
Tucson has been installing video-based
detection systems to enhance “real time” traffic
monitoring. In the near future, this technology
should enable computers at the Tucson Traffic
Operation Center to automatically adjust traffic
signals cycles to compensate for changing
traffic conditions. This advanced technology is
being operated along a 2-mile segment of
Speedway Boulevard.28 Exhibit K illustrates the
number of signals that are linked to the Tucson
Transportation Operation Center.
Currently, ADOT utilizes traffic signal computer
hardware (controllers) that are not always
compatible with local traffic signal systems.
ADOT has a policy that requires the Department
to upgrade its controllers before turning over
jurisdiction of a traffic signal to a local entity.
A number of metropolitan cities have
implemented various forms of advanced
adaptive traffic control systems including:
Beverly Hills, Michigan; Los Angeles, California;
Toronto, Canada; Paris, France; Oakland,
California; and Madrid, Spain. Adaptive traffic
control systems reduce vehicle stops by 10 to
41% and reduce traffic delays by 14 to 44%.
The studies indicate that benefits of these
advanced systems depend on several variables,
such as number of intersections, spacing
between lights, corridor lengths and vehicle
demand patterns.10
As an example, São Paulo, Brazil installed an
adaptive signal control system along its major
commuter, commercial and service route (Av.
Lins de Vasconcelos). The system reduced
delays 14.4% in a 15-hour study period and
travel speeds improved 14%. Mid-day average
travel speeds improved 25%. Similarly, an
adaptive signal control system (107
intersections) in Madrid, Spain reduced average
travel time by 5%. Flow through the area was
improved by reducing the number of stops by
10% and traffic delays by 19%.10
Express Bus or Bus Rapid Transit
Service
Federal Transit Administration reports indicate
that express bus or bus rapid transit (BRT) is
being used more and more to reduce
congestion in major metropolitan areas such as
Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Orlando, Miami,
1-3-15
Ottawa, Cleveland, Nashville, Boston, Las Vegas
and Washington, D.C.29
Currently, there are 21 express bus routes and
70 buses dedicated to express bus service in
the Phoenix metropolitan region. The current
fare for express bus service is $1.75 and
monthly passes are available at a cost of $51.
Approximately 23% of express bus operating
expenses are recovered through the farebox.
Current express bus ridership is about 1,675
riders in each daily peak period.21
Presently, there are only 14 buses that provide
“express bus” service between the eastern
Maricopa County cities and Phoenix. The ability
to provide adequate, regional express bus
service has been hampered by limited funding,
the incomplete High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
lane system, and a lack of Park & Ride lots.21
Initial modeling by the Regional Public
Transportation Authority (RPTA) in Maricopa
County indicates that five additional routes and
doubling the number of express bus service
miles on an expanded HOV lane system in the
Phoenix region would nearly quadruple express
bus ridership. The model indicates that at least
5,850 commuters would utilize expanded
express bus service in the peak period each
day, compared to current peak-period ridership
of 1,675.21 The following chart compares the
current express bus system in the Phoenix
region to the expanded service outlined above.
Table 1-3-10
RPTA Express Bus Statistics
Factor FY2000 FY2025 (est.)
Routes 21 26
Avgerage Daily Ridership 3.150 11,500
Miles 796,000 1,400,000
Peak of Peak Frequency 30 minutes 15 minutes
Span of Service 2.5 hoursam/pm 4 hours am/pm
Average Ridership 23/one way trips 41/one way trips
Round Trips 70 140
Fleet Requirements 68 125
Estimate Avg. Speed 23 mph 29 mph
Ops Costs (2000$) $4M $8M+
Annualized Capital Costs $2M avg. annual $3.65M avg. annual
Source: Regional Public Transportation Authority
In the Tucson metropolitan area, Sun Tran, the
area’s transit provider requires private
employers to pay 100% of the cost of express
bus service for their employees, although Sun
Tran operates 9 of the 37 routes in the region.
(Sun Tran) uses its revenues to support local
transit and Dial-a-Ride service.) A recent study
identified the following corridors as good
candidates for regional express bus service:
Broadway-St Marys Road; Craycroft to Tucson
International Airport; Grant Road from the
University’s downtown complex to Ajo Highway;
Interstate 10 and Interstate 19; Oracle Road;
La Cholla-River Road-Alvernon to Pima
Community College East campus; Sunrise-
Skyline-Ina Road Corridor; from the Southwest
Laos Transit Center to Broadway-Kolb and
Tanque Verde Corridors.28
Currently, at least one private charter bus
company provides commuter express bus
service for several major employers in the
Phoenix metropolitan area. Several of the
express bus routes served by the private
provider are at capacity. The company uses 47
or 55 passenger buses.30
1-3-16
Vanpooling
RPTA in the metropolitan Phoenix area currently
uses federal and state funding to provide
vanpool service in the region. Currently, there
are 204 vans operating in the region serving
about 1,895 commuters each weekday. The
annual operating cost for this program in FY
2000 was $1.2 million. Farebox revenues cover
100% of the operating costs and a portion of
the capital costs. Each van travels
approximately 67.3 miles each weekday and
carries an average of 9.7 persons per van.21
RPTA is transitioning from privately owned vans
to RPTA owned vans. When fully
implemented, this will result in a higher
coverage of capital costs percentage.
According to RPTA, there is sufficient demand
to operate an additional 500 to 1,000 vans in
the metropolitan Phoenix area. The estimated
cost to add 100 vans per year is $2.5 million
(capital) and $500,000 (administrative). The
cost of operating an expanded vanpool program
would be negligible, presuming that federal
monies are available to purchase the vans.
RPTA estimates that this vanpool expansion
would carry 9,700 additional passengers per
weekday and would reduce weekday commuter
VMT by 11,000 miles per day or 11.2 million
miles per month or 135 million miles per year.
This expanded vanpool program would also
eliminate approximately 3.6 million pounds of
pollution per year.21
According to RPTA, there are 12 non-subsidized
vanpools operating outside Maricopa County,
six operating in Pima County and six operating
in Pinal County.
In Pima County, Raytheon Missile Systems has
taken the initial step to subsidize a vanpool at
$14 per seat per month. Raytheon is using a
private firm to provide the van, insurance and
maintenance. The 2000 Pima TRP survey
showed a 10% increase in vanpooling, with 277
participating employees.22
Additional HOV Lanes and Connecting
Ramps
In Houston, Texas there is a 90-mile network of
connected HOV lanes, direct access ramps, Park
and Ride lots and transit centers. These HOV
lanes carry up to 40% of the travelers on these
routes during the peak hour and reduce travel
time an average of 2 to 18 minutes during the
morning peak period.31
Currently, barrier-separated, reversible HOV
lanes operate on six Houston freeways.
Frequent express bus service is provided to
downtown Houston and other major activity
centers from 24 Park and Ride lots. In 2000,
approximately 106,400 people used Houston’s
HOV lanes daily, including 42,400 bus riders,
1,620 vanpool riders, 62,260 carpool
commuters and 120 motorcyclists. These HOV
lanes provided travel time savings of 4 to 22
minutes compared to general-purpose lanes.31
According to the Transportation Research
Board, development of an HOV lane system has
been an effective congestion reduction strategy
in several metropolitan areas, including San
Diego, Orange County, California, Seattle,
Northern Virginia and Washington D.C.31
HOV and Carpool lanes reduce congestion on
urban freeways. For example, in the
metropolitan Phoenix area, the eastbound
Interstate 10 the HOV lane at 39th Avenue
carried more people during the average
morning rush hour (3,250 people) than any of
the adjacent general-purpose lanes (2,250
people/lane). During the evening peak period,
the westbound Interstate 10 HOV lane carried
2,000 more people than any of the adjacent
general-purpose lanes.32
ADOT studies indicate that the cost of
constructing a system of HOV lanes throughout
the entire Maricopa Regional Freeway System
would be offset by the time-savings and
increased job productivity, although these
savings could not be used to fund the
improvements. For example, adding an HOV
lane on the Price Freeway, from SR 202 to US
60 would cost $12.5 million, but would generate
a $4.47/hour savings for each HOV commuter
each day.32 Exhibit L compares the cost of
1-3-17
adding HOV lanes and dollars saved per hour in
lost job productivity.
Completing the proposed Maricopa Regional
HOV Lane Plan would reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and would reduce delays during
peak periods. By 2020, the proposed HOV Plan
is estimated to reduce peak morning commuter
VMT by nearly 22.5 million miles per day, which
represents 23.6% of total projected VMT for the
Maricopa region at that time. The proposed
HOV Plan is expected to reduce 2020 morning
peak-period delays by over 30,000 hours per
day.32
The estimated total cost to build 20 additional
Park & Ride lots, 14 ramp connectors, 2
freeway to freeway HOV ramps, an additional
bus station and 93 additional miles of HOV
lanes on the region’s freeway system is
approximately $750 million.32 Exhibit L
provides more detailed information on this
proposed expansion of the Maricopa Regional
HOV Lane System.
High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes
Like HOV lanes, High Occupancy Toll (HOT)
lanes increase the capacity of existing freeway
corridors. HOT lane users pay a fee for use of
the HOV lanes, without the multiple passenger
requirements. The fees paid by these HOT lane
users capture a portion of the time and
productivity benefits received by the HOT lane
user and contribute to funding HOT lanes and
other transportation improvement.
In California, conversion of HOV lanes to HOT
lanes has increased carpooling. The Interstate
15 HOT Lane Program near San Diego,
California has been operational for the last six
years. The average rush hour fare on the
Interstate 15 HOT lanes is $2.25 per one-way
trip. A value pricing system has been in place
on the 91 Express Lanes near Anaheim,
California since December 1995. With the value
pricing system, trip fares are increased as
demand for the HOT lanes increases. The
average rush hour fare on the 91 Express lanes
is $2.90 per one-way trip. 32
California HOT lane facilities have improved
traffic flows on adjacent general-purpose lanes.
Average peak period speeds in the general-purpose
lanes have increased from 15 mph to
32 mph and morning peak period congestion
has decreased by 25%.32
A recent study concluded that it would cost
approximately $20 million to convert the
existing or programmed HOV lanes along the
Superstition Freeway and Interstate 10 to HOT
lanes, between eastern Maricopa County and
downtown Phoenix, with an average net annual
revenues of $9.9 million by the year 2010.32
Bus Pullout Lanes
Bus pullouts facilitate the orderly flow of traffic
and improve safety on major urban arterials
used by local buses.
Currently, there are 475 bus pullouts in
Phoenix, 61 in Tempe, nearly 100 in Scottsdale,
20 in Chandler, 48 in Glendale and 38 in Mesa.
As part of Transit 2000, the City of Phoenix
Transit Department plans to build 20 additional
pullouts each year over a 20-year period. In
addition, the City of Phoenix Street Department
plans to construct up to five additional pullouts
each year for the next 20 years. (RPTA, City of
Chandler and City of Glendale)
Fifty bus pullouts are under consideration for
funding from a proposed Tucson local
transportation sales tax.
The average cost of a urban bus pullout in
constant 2000 dollars is about $55,000.
Typically, funding for additional bus pullouts has
been a component of recent transit tax or bond
elections throughout the state.
National studies indicate that 50 to 60% of
all traffic congestion is attributed to
incidents (e.g., minor accidents, stalled or
abandoned vehicles on the freeway
shoulder, large debris in roadway). These
studies also indicate that formal incident
management programs and freeway
management systems are two effective
strategies for reducing congestion.
Incident Management Programs
Advanced incident management systems reduce
1-3-18
incidence clearance times by up to 8 minutes.
Travel times can be reduced when incident
management systems are integrated into
freeway management systems. Incident
management strategies, such as freeway
service patrols and traffic management centers
also reduce fatalities resulting from vehicle
crashes by 10%, due to earlier detection and
removal of stranded vehicles.10
It is projected that by the year 2005, incident-related
congestion will cost the U.S. public over
$75 billion in lost productivity and will result in
over 8.4 billion gallons of wasted fuel.10
Several key incident management strategies
were recently implemented in Arizona. “Quick
clearance” legislation was enacted. A formal
freeway service patrol on the Maricopa freeway
system was established and the state incident
management plan was developed to expedite
the investigation and clearance of crash scenes
on our state highways. A statewide
communication system was established
providing real-time information to motorists
about traffic bottlenecks and alternative routes
to avoid vehicle crash sites. Since their
inception in December 2000, Department of
Public Safety freeway service patrol units
operating on Maricopa regional freeways have
assisted 2,876 stranded motorists, helped
remove 1,146 abandoned vehicles, participated
in 81 collision crash investigations and
participated in 717 traffic control assignments
to re-route traffic due to highway crashes. The
freeway service patrol units also remove large
debris from the highways, thereby reducing
vehicle crashes.33
Estimates from the San Francisco area indicate
that freeway service patrols have reduced
hydrocarbons by 32 kg/day; CO emissions by
322 kg/day and NOx emissions by 789 kg/day.28
The Minnesota Highway Helper Program has
reduced the time a disabled vehicle remains on
the roadside, by eight minutes. Based upon
current data, it is estimated that this program
reduces the cost of delay by $1.4 million and
costs approximately $600,000 to operate
annually.28
Freeway Management Systems
Since 1988, ADOT has allocated funding to install
Freeway Management Systems throughout the
Maricopa Regional Freeway System. Currently,
ADOT and the State Transportation Board
typically allocate money each year to expand the
system. Historically, federal monies have
covered 90% of the funding for Freeway
Management System improvements. Exhibit M
illustrates the Freeway Management System for
the Phoenix Metropolitan area; Exhibit N shows
the Rural Variable Messages signs in the state;
and Exhibit O shows the Rural Cameras in the
state.
U.S. Department of Transportation studies
indicate freeway management systems (e.g.
ramp metering, real-time traffic message signs
and television or radio transmission of traffic
information) provide the following benefits10:
Average travel time reductions of 20% to
48%;
Average travel speed increases of 16% to
63%;
Freeway capacity increases of 17% of 25%;
Crash rate reductions of 15% to 50%;
Fuel consumption reductions of 41%; and
Substantial reductions in emissions.
A recent study of freeway ramp metering
demonstrated the effect of these systems. The
extensive ramp metering system on
Minneapolis-St Paul area freeways was shut
down for a six-week period and revealed the
following10:
Freeway volumes declined 9% without ramp
meters;
Average freeway travel times increased 22%
without the meters;
Freeway speeds declined by 7% without
meters;
Accidents increased 26% without meters;
and
Ramp metering generated annual savings of
25,121 hours throughout the system.
1-3-19
Increased Capacity on Major Roads
and Highways
Roads of Regional Significance
In 1991, the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) Regional Council adopted
design guidelines for Roads of Regional
Significance (RRS) throughout the metropolitan
Phoenix area. Numerous existing arterial
streets were identified as potential roads of
regional significance. In general, a principal
arterial street every three to six miles would be
modified to handle increased traffic volumes by
reconstructing these streets to the RRS design
standards.34 Exhibit P outlines the adopted MAG
design and access control guidelines for RRS
designated corridors. (MAG 1996 RRS Report)
According to MAG documents, the RRS proposal
was adopted because even under the most
optimistic future freeway scenarios, the region’s
arterial street system will carry at least 50% of
the vehicles traveling in the region. Currently,
66% of all traffic travels on the grid system and
33% of traffic is handled by the freeways within
the Maricopa County region.34
Re-engineering and widening a RRS-designated
corridor is a more cost-effective approach to
enhancing traffic flows than constructing a new
depressed freeway corridor. For example,
reconstructing Greenway Road to six lanes cost
approximately $3 to $5 million per mile,
including right-of-way. Many segments along
Greenway Road that previously handled only
12,000 vehicles prior to redesign and
reconstruction now handle average daily traffic
(ADT) levels of over 60,000 vehicles. The cost
of constructing one-mile of urban freeway is
about $39 million and a six-lane urban freeway,
such as SR 51 (Squaw Peak Freeway) handles
an ADT of 160,000 vehicles, according to
ADOT.11,35
There are numerous examples portions of city
streets in the Phoenix metropolitan area already
at RRS standards, such as Chandler Boulevard,
Scottsdale Road, Shea Boulevard and Greenway
Road. Many RRS-designated routes already
have five lanes and only require one more lane
to meet RRS design standards.
In many instances existing traffic signals on
RRS designated routes do not conform to RRS
design standards, which call for a minimum of
½ mile spacing between traffic signals.
According to traffic engineers from both the
Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas, the
installation of traffic lights more frequently than
½ mile apart severely limits traffic light
synchronization and disrupts the flow of traffic
on major arterial streets.35,28
1-3-20
Table 1-3-11
Highways of Statewide Significance
Highway
Designation Corridor Description
Average
Daily VMT
(thousands)
Corridor
Length
(miles)
20-Year
Cost
(millions)
I-8 I-10 Jct. to California
Border
2,161 185 167
I-10 California to New Mexico
Border
16,953 320 1,738
I-17 Phoenix to Flagstaff 7,126 136 1,466
I-19 Nogales to Tucson 1,915 72 126
I-40 California to New Mexico
Border
7,362 388 1,908
US60 I-10 To New Mexico
Border
4,710 344 1,068
US89 Flagstaff to Utah Border 2,109 152 346
US93 Wickenburg to Hoover
Dam
1,551 184 1,074
US95 San Luis to Bullhead City 1,679 264 451
SR77 Tucson to Globe 1,334 65 163
SR85 Buckeye to Gila Bend 466 40 219
SR260 Cottonwood to U.S. 191
Jct.
1,083 256 464
Total 48,449 2,406 9,190
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation
Highways of Statewide Significance
Since 1994, ADOT has conducted 33
comprehensive, long-range corridor studies on
highway corridors throughout the State. Twelve
major highway corridors have been identified as
critical components of Arizona’s statewide
transportation system. The combined length of
these 12 corridors is 2,406 miles or 36% of the
State’s total highway miles. These major
highway corridors also carry 38% of the State’s
total daily VMT.3
A conservative analysis of the Task Force’s
Needs database indicates that over $9 billion is
needed in the next 20-years to properly fund
major improvements (reconstruction and
widening projects) on these 12 major highway
corridors.3,11 The table above illustrates the
estimated system improvement cost for each of
these highway corridors.
1-3-21
Transportation Funding Issues
All Modes
The average costs associated with various
modes of transportation are significant in
terms of capital costs and annual operation
or maintenance costs. The following chart
illustrates the estimated costs to
implement and maintain various
transportation system improvements.
Table 1-3-12
Costs of Various Transportation Modes
Facility or Service Capital Costs Annual Operation Costs
Urban Freeway
(6-lanes, on/off ramps)
$39 million/mile $123,000/mile/year (including landscaping,
pavement preservation and general maintenace)
Rural Interstate
(2-lanes, TIs every 2 miles)
$15 million/mile $10,000/mile/year
Major Arterial Street
(6-lanes, center left turn)
$4.4 million/mile $113,000/mile/year
Rural County Road
(2-lane?, principal arterial)
$2.1 million/mile $49,900/mile/year
Tribal Road
(2-lanes)
$750,000/mile $113,000/mile/year
Light Rail Transit
(Phoenix 20-mile system)
$50 million/mile $25 million/mile
Regional Express Bus $325,000/45 passenger bus $250,000/bus
$5.00/revenue mile
HOV Lane
(Urban Freeway)
$5 million/mile $5,000/mile/year
Local Fixed Route Transit
(Typical urban corridor)
$320,000/40-passenger bus $225,000/year
$4.14/revenue mile
Urban Commuter Rail
(Maricopa County Region)
$170 million/mile $6 million/mile
Electric Passenger Rail
(Phoenix to Tucson)
$1,200 million/128 miles Total Cost: $140,423,000
Total Farebox Recovery: $102,784,000
Deficit: $43,745,000
High Speed Maglev Rail
(Phoenix to Tucson)
$3 billion/100 miles $32 million (3 cars per train, 5,000 daily
ridership)
Dial-a-Ride
(Typical urban route)
$60,000/11-passenger van $37.18/revenue mile
Vanpool
(Typical urban route)
$23,000/8 to 10 passenger van $16.94/revenue mile
Jitney Van
(Typical rural system)
$2.5 – $2.8 million/system $23,709/vehicle
Regional Bike Path
(Urban-Non-motorized)
$527,000/2.3 mile path $20,000/year
Sources: American Magline Group, ADOT, BIA, MAG, Oro Valley, PAG, RPTA
1-3-22
The Vision 21 Revenue Consultant estimates
that the 20-year comprehensive transportation
revenues for Arizona will be $41 billion. All
project revenues estimates were developed
using 2000 dollars to reduce uncertainty
associated with fluctuating inflation rates. The
following table includes Federal, State and local
sources.
Table 1-3-12
Projected Existing Transportation Revenue Sources
Mode FY2001-05 FY2006-11 FY2011-15 FY2016-20 Total
Roadway $7,955.1 $8,432.6 $8,580.1 $8,816.0 $33,783.8
Transit $1,133.0 $1,050.9 $986.8 $935.1 $4,106.1
Aviation $846.7 $795.5 $771.0 $751.1 $3,164.3
Total $9,935.1 $10,279.0 $10,337.9 $10,502.3 $41,054.3
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates. All figures in millions of dollars.
Roads and Highways
A thorough review of current
transportation programs and long-range
transportation plans indicates that current
revenue sources will be insufficient to meet
projected population growth and
transportation demands over the next 20
years, despite additional federal and local
revenue sources becoming available in
recent years.
Recent ADOT Highway Performance
Measurement Studies (HPMS) of Arizona’s
highways, indicate that there is a $1.75 billion
(20-year) backlog in bringing rural highways up
to “minimally acceptable” standards. The
studies indicate that there is a $728 million
backlog (20-year) to bring urban highways up
to “minimally acceptable” standards.36
ADOT studies indicate that state highway
pavement preservation expenditures should be
increased by $15 million per year and annual
maintenance expenditures should be increased
by $20 million. The 20-year cost of these
increases is $700 million.11
A conservative analysis of the Task Force’s
Needs database indicates that over $9 billion is
needed in the next 20 years to properly fund
major improvements (reconstruction and
widening projects) on the key statewide
highway corridors.3,11
The updated 1997 County Needs Assessment
indicates that projected county roadway needs
exceed expected revenue by $5.1 billion over
the next 20 years.37
The build-out cost of HOV lanes, Park & Ride
Lots, quadruple express bus service and to
expand vanpooling significantly in the
metropolitan Phoenix area is approximately $1
billion over the next 20 years.32
The estimated 20 year costs of the MAG Long-
Range Plan exceed expected revenues by $9.4
billion.7
In Phoenix, the total street and freeway needs
exceed expected revenues by $1.753 billion and
the total public transportation needs exceed
expected revenues by $3.299 billion over the
next 20 years.35
The estimated 20 year cost of the PAG Long-
Range Transportation Plan exceed expected
revenues by $5.3 billion.8
Several major bypass routes have been
identified with substantial costs including
Wickenburg ($230 million), Gold Canyon in
north-east Pinal County ($150 million), and
Tucson – Sauharita ($300 million).11
1-3-23
Ongoing maintenance and repair of the
155-mile Maricopa Regional Freeway
System will compete with other existing
highway segments for scarce maintenance
dollars.
The voter-approved, 20 year Maricopa County
transportation sales tax is projected to provide
a total of $3.845 billion (inflation adjusted
dollars). Based on the 1985 ballot proposition,
these revenues are restricted to construction
purposes and none of these tax revenues can
be used for maintenance or preservation costs.
This tax is scheduled to end December 31,
2005.38
Historically, maintenance has not been funded
at the long-term optimal levels. An additional
$20 million per year is needed to reach optimal
levels.11
Typically, it takes 15 to 20 years or more to
allocate sufficient resources to complete
major widening projects (typically to four-lanes)
on some of the state’s major rural
highways.
It took 31 years to fully fund the widening of
the Beeline Highway to four lanes from Phoenix
to Payson.
The projected cost to add another lane in each
direction on Interstate 10 between Phoenix and
Tucson is about $255 to $350 million, not
including upgrades to numerous interchanges
that will be needed over the next 20 years.
Under current revenues, adding another lane in
each direction on this stretch of interstate could
take more than 30 years to complete.11,27
Under current revenues, it will take
approximately 25 years or more to add an
additional lane in each direction on Interstate
17 from the Loop 101 to Cordes Junction. The
estimated cost to add one lane in each direction
on this stretch of interstate is $125 million.11,27
Over the last seven years, ADOT has spent over
$100 million to widen US 93 to four lanes
between Kingman and Phoenix. At least $500
million in additional funding is needed to
complete this project. Under existing revenues,
it will take over 30 years to complete expansion
of US 93 into a four-lane highway.11,27
Based on current revenue sources, the 40 mile
segment of SR 85 between Gila Bend and
Buckeye will not be fully funded until 2011.11
Monies in the Highway User Revenue Fund
(HURF) are constitutionally restricted
principally to roadway and bridge
purposes. HURF revenues have become
less effective in fully meeting Arizona’s
growing transportation needs. Factors,
such as inflation, improved fuel efficiency,
and the increasing use of non-taxed fuel
sources, have and will continue to erode
the effective yield of Highway User
revenues.
Currently, the State’s fuel tax on gasoline and
diesel fuel generates approximately 56% of
total Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF)
revenues. The HURF revenues support 62% of
total roadway costs in the State (Wilbur Smith
Associates). The use of HURF revenues is
restricted by the Arizona Constitution (Article
IX, Section 14), primarily to road and bridge
improvements and maintenance.38
The following graph illustrates increases in the
gasoline taxes that would have been necessary
to offset the effects of inflation and vehicle fuel
efficiency on gasoline tax collections:
1-3-24
Figure 1-3-3
EFFECTS OF INFLATION AND VEHICLE FUEL
EFFICIENCY ON GASOLINE TAX RATES
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year
Cents Per Gallon
Actual Tax Rate
Rate to Keep Pace
with Inflation
Rate to Keep Pace
with Inflation and Fuel
Efficiency
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates
Ford, Honda, GM and other auto manufactures
are selling hybrid-drive vehicles that get 70 to
80 miles per gallon. Major auto manufactures
are taking steps to improve the fuel efficiency
of sport utility vehicles by 35%. High vehicle
fuel efficiency reduces the tax revenues
received per mile of travel, but does not
similarly reduce the costs of developing and
maintaining the transportation system.
As auto manufacturers begin to mass produce
fuel cells and alternatively fueled vehicles,
Arizona, the other states, and the federal
government will have to modify their existing
fuel tax structure or identify non-fuel revenue
sources to adequately fund future
transportation improvements, maintenance and
services.
According to the Federal Highway
Administration, the federal 4-cent per gallon tax
break provided for ethanol fuels costs Arizona
approximately $8 million each year. In Arizona,
alternative fuel vehicles are exempt from the
state’s 18-cent per gallon fuel tax. These
vehicles are also assessed only a minimal
vehicle license tax. The full financial impact of
these tax breaks on the HURF each year is
uncertain. As of May 2000 there were over
13,000 alternative vehicles, including
governmental fleets, registered in this state.38,39
Growing congestion, time delays, and
safety are common transportation
concerns in both urban and rural
communities. Among the key rural
transportation needs are growing demand
for para-transit services, congestion relief
where local roads intersect with state
highways, additional highway shoulders,
safety pullouts, passing lanes, and bypass
routes.
Approximately 37 miles of passing and climbing
lanes have been constructed by ADOT in FY
1999 through FY 2001 at a cost of $24.3
million.3 Exhibit Q contains a listing of these
projects.
1-3-25
The following chart indicates the projected costs
to construct some of the various bypass routes
that have been requested by communities
throughout Arizona.
Table 1-3-13
Bypass Route Costs
Community Impacted
Highway
Projected Cost Length
Apache Junction
(Gold Canyon) US60 $150 million 18 miles
Gila Bend I-8, SR85 $24 million 4 miles
Kingman (Wickieup) US93 $46 million 4 miles
Payson SR87/SR260 $70 million 8 miles
Tucson – Sauharita I-10, I-19 $300 million 19 miles
Wickenburg
(permanent bypass) US60 $230 million 25 miles
Source: ADOT State Engineer’s Office
Currently, there are 4,274 miles of two-lane
highways under ADOT’s jurisdiction. According
to ADOT, 60% of these two-lane highways
were built over 50 years ago to narrower lane
and shoulder width standards.11
Transit
Beginning in the late 1990’s cities moved
to fund transportation projects, especially
transit services, through local tax
referenda. While successful passage of
these local tax elections may help meet
municipal needs , they do not address
regional transportation facilities or
services.
Tempe Transit Tax: In September 1996,
Tempe voters approved a permanent ½% sales
tax dedicated to public transit improvements. A
fifteen member citizens’ Transportation
Commission was formed to provide citizen
oversight of the tax, among other
responsibilities. The average annual transit tax
revenues are approximately $24,000,000.
These revenues are used to support a variety of
transit, bicycle and pedestrian capital projects
including bus stop improvements and bus
pullouts, transit centers and maintenance
facilities, light rail planning and construction,
and bikepaths. The following is a summary of
how these revenues (in constant 2000 dollars)
will be allocated over the 20-year life of the tax:
Table 1-3-14
Tempe Transit Tax Uses
Service or Improvement 20-Year Total % of Total
Revenue
Local Bus Service $341 million 41%
Light Rail Rapid Transit $129 million 16%
Dial-a-Ride Service $33 million 4%
Bus Rapid Transit (Express Bus) See note below --
Support Services e.g. transit security $168 million 20%
Limited Stop Service N/A N/A
Neighborhood Mini-Bus Service $108 million 13%
Other Improvements e.g. bus pullouts $53 million 6%
Note: Tempe does not currently have plans for BRT service, although it is being discussed as an alternative in the
Tempe/Scottsdale Major Investment Study currently underway.
Source: City of Tempe
1-3-26
Phoenix Transit 2000 Plan: In March 2000,
Phoenix voters approved a 4/10th% sales tax to
fund various transit improvements or services.
The following is a summary of how these
revenues (in constant 2000 dollars) will be
allocated over the 20-year life of the tax:
Table 1-3-15
Phoenix Transit Tax Uses
Service or Improvement 20-Year Total % of Total
Revenue
Local Bus Service $2.515 billion 52%
Light Rail Rapid Transit $1.654 billion 34%
Dial-a-Ride Service $336 million 6%
Bus Rapid Transit (Express Bus) $160 million 4%
Support Services e.g. transit security $115 million 2%
Limited Stop Service $61 million 1%
Neighborhood Mini-Bus Service $54 million 1%
Other Improvements e.g. bus pullouts $44 million 1%
Source: “Transit 2000 – the Phoenix Transit Plan Summary ” City of Phoenix Public Transit Department, March 2000.
Flagstaff Transportation Tax: In May 2000,
Flagstaff voters approved several components
of a new transportation sales tax. The new
revenues are dedicated to specific
transportation improvements including a
railroad overpass, street improvements and
transit system improvements. The sales tax is
expected to generate approximately $121
million over the 20-year life of the tax. The
sales taxes will be used to fund the following
four transportation projects and services:
Table 1-3-16
Flagstaff Transportation Tax Uses
Project or Service 20-year Total
Fourth Street Overpass $27.6 million
Pedestrian/Bike Path Projects $16.0 million
Street Improvements & Maintenance
(including computerized signal synchronization) $52.0 million
Transit –expanded bus system $14.0 million
Source: “Transportation 2000 Decision”, City of Flagstaff
Glendale Transportation Sales Tax: In
November 2000, Glendale voters approved a
½% sales tax for transportation purposes, from
2002 to 2025. The $1 billion plan includes
anticipated federal, regional and state funding,
farebox revenues and city revenues. The ½%
tax is expected to cover 58% of the plan. The
following is how the Citizens Advisory
Committee Transportation Issues believes these
local tax revenues should be spent:
1-3-27
Table 1-3-17
Glendale Transportation Tax Uses
Service or Improvement 23-Year Total % of Total
Revenue
Local Bus Service $340 million 34%
Street Improvements $310 million 31%
Light Rail Rapid Transit $170 million 17%
Dial-a-Ride Service $80 million 8%
Support Services e.g. transit security $60 million 6%
Other Modes e.g. bicycle $40 million 4%
Source: “Transportation Package Needs More Specifics” Glendale Star, June 21, 2001.
Tucson: A Citizens Advisory Committee has
been formed to develop a plan on how to spend
a potential ½% city sales tax over the next 20
years. The ½% sales tax is expected to
generate approximately $40 million per year.
The Advisory Committee is expected to forward
its recommendations to the Tucson City Council
by early December 2001.
Intercity Passenger Rail
Intercity passenger rail service between
Phoenix and Tucson does not appear to be
a cost-effective means of relieving
congestion compared to building an
additional lane in each direction on this
heavily-utilized interstate.
Traffic trends show a need to widen Interstate
10 between Phoenix and Tucson to a total of six
lanes by 2005 and to a total of eight lanes by
2020.17
A 1997 ADOT study evaluated various
alternative means to alleviate growing
congestion on the Interstate 10 corridor
between Phoenix and Tucson. The following is
a comparison of the five major alternatives
evaluated in the ADOT study.17
Table 1-3-18
I –10 Alternatives
Alternative
Top
Speed
Travel
Time
Capital
Costs
Annual
Operating
Costs
Annual
Vehicles
or
Ridership
Highway Widening*
(New lane each way)
75mph 103
minutes
$255 million $3.20 million 3,213,000
Conventional Rail*
(Minor upgrades)
80mph 117
minutes
$378 million $17.6 million 1,277,500
Conventional Rail*
(Major upgrades)
125mph 82
minutes
$1.15 billion $96.2 million 2,482,000
High Speed Rail*
(Electric)
175mph 60
minutes
$3.6 billion $138 million 3,212,000
High Speed Rail**
(Maglev)
300mph Approx. 39
minutes
$3 billion $32 million 1,800,000
Source: *”Arizona High Speed Rail Feasibility Study”, Arizona Department of Transportation, April 1998.
**American Magline Group
1-3-28
Building an additional lane in each direction on
this stretch of Interstate 10 will cost between
$255 million and $350 million, excluding major
traffic interchange improvements and would
move an additional 3.21 million vehicles per
year. The least expensive conventional rail
alternative has a capital cost of $378 million
and would move only 1.217 million riders per
year. High-speed passenger rail (electric)
would move a comparable amount of people as
adding one more lane in each direction, but at
three to four times the cost ($1.15 billion).17
Additional highway lane capacity will also move
substantial amounts of goods and freight in
addition to motorists whereas transit tends to
move primarily people.
The following are three examples of passenger
or commuter rail systems that link numerous
urban centers and are considered to be very
successful transit operations based on recent
evaluations by the American Public Transit
Association40:
Amtrak Cascades: This passenger rail system
located in the Pacific Northwest links 16
different communities, including Vancouver,
British Columbia; Seattle and Olympia,
Washington; and Portland and Eugene, Oregon.
In 1999, the average travel time between
Portland and Seattle was 3.5 hours. By 2018
travel time between these two metropolitan
areas is expected to be 2.5 hours due to newer
track and system improvements. The top
speed of the Cascade Talgo trains is 79 mph.
The average daily ridership is 1,123 persons
and the annual total ridership is 410,000
passengers.
South Shore Line: This 90-mile commuter rail
system serves 13 urban communities located
along Lake Michigan. Various segments of the
system have been in operation since the 1920s.
In 1982, a major capital equipment upgrade
including the addition of 41 new cars, was
completed. In 1992, an additional 17 cars were
added. The trains travel at a top speed of 79
mph. The average daily ridership is 9,589 and
the total annual ridership is 3.5 million
passengers.
Aviation
Historically, federal aviation monies have
funded over 80% of the aviation capital
improvement projects in Arizona.
Rededicating all flight property tax
revenues to the State Aviation Fund will
enhance the ability of the state and local
communities to secure additional federal
aviation grants.
The State Aviation Needs Study (SANS 2000)
indicates that $315 million in additional
revenues is needed over the next 10 years to
maintain existing levels of performance at the
20 commercial service and reliever airports
throughout the State.15
The SANS 2000 study also indicates that an
additional $649 million in new funding is need
to bring these airports up to minimally
acceptable guidelines.15
Currently, there are 309 airports in Arizona that
are registered with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Eighty-one of these are
open to the public and thereby eligible for
grants from the State Aviation Fund. Fifty-seven
of these facilities are recognized by the
FAA as nationally significant airports and are
thereby eligible for federal funding for airport
planning and capital improvements.41
In 1999, Wilbur Smith Associates completed a
study at the request of ADOT and Governor Hull
entitled “Airport Small Community Economic
Development and Transportation Program”
(ASCET). The ASCET study indicates that
aviation improvements would enhance
economic development, attract and retain
employers, and increase tourism in numerous
communities throughout Arizona.18
Other Modes
Since 1993, ADOT and the State Transportation
Board have allocated nearly $70 million in
federal revenues for highway enhancement
projects. Over 60% of these revenues or $49
million have been allocated to pedestrian and
bikepath projects. An additional $7.35 million
in local matching funds have been used to fund
these pedestrian and bikepath improvements.
1-3-29
Economic Impact of Transportation
National and state studies clearly indicate
the significant direct impact transportation
expenditures have on our economy.
Roadway and Highway Construction
Transportation construction is a $153 billion per
year industry in the United States.44 This
industry makes a greater contribution to the
Gross Domestic Product than do the nation’s
farms ($93.9 billion), the petroleum industry
($88.6 billion), the motion picture industry
($31.3 billion) and the tobacco industry ($19
billion).45
Each $1 billion invested in the federal highway
program creates a total of 42,100 jobs in three
categories: direct, indirect and induced jobs. A
$1 billion investment in highways creates 7,000
direct jobs (workers that work directly on
highway projects); 19,7000 indirect jobs
(workers that help supply materials for highway
construction); and 14,500 induced jobs
(workers that benefit from the spending of
highway construction and supply industry
employees).46
The value of highway contracts awarded in
August 2001 throughout the country was
$3.204 billion.47 In August 2001, ADOT awarded
$100 million in highway contracts.11
In August 2001 approximately $1.3 billion in
bridge and tunnel contracts were awarded
throughout the country.47
Aviation
In 1999, Arizona State University’s College of
Business completed an analysis for ADOT of the
direct and indirect impact of aviation on
Arizona’s economy. The following are some of
the key findings from the ASU report on
aviation’s direct impact on this State in 199842:
Aviation’s primary impact on Arizona’s
economy was $15.1 billion in economic
activity including 167,325 jobs with a payroll
of $4.3 billion.
The primary impact of Arizona’s commercial
aviation, as measured by combined revenues
of private firms and budgets of government
agencies, was $3.8 billion in 1998.
Employment directly related to commercial
aviation was 29,432 with an annual payroll
of $884.1 million.
Over 10,500 Arizona workers have jobs
directly related to general aviation.
Economic activity from general aviation
aircraft owners and general aviation airports
was nearly $1 billion in 1998.
Arizona’s aerospace manufacturing firms
produced output valued at $4.4 billion in
1998. These manufacturing firms employed
26,935 workers, with average annual salaries
exceeding $50,000.
Air travelers and tourists spent $4.5 billion in
Arizona in 1998, creating 77,000 jobs in
lodging, retailing and the service sector.
Transit
In 1999, Cambridge Systematics prepared a
quantitative analysis for the American Public
Transit Association on the impact of public
transportation on the Nation’s economy. The
following are some of the key findings from this
report43:
Transit capital investment is a significant
source of job creation. An estimated 314
jobs are created for each $10 million
invested in transit capital improvements.
Local businesses benefit from transit
operations. The analysis indicates that a $10
million investment in transit results in a $30
million gain in sales.
1-3-30
Transportation Planning and Programming Issues
Development of a 20-Year State
Transportation Plan
Arizona needs an integrated long-range (at
least 20 years) transportation plan. A 20-
year plan will identify the State’s critical
transportation needs. The Plan should
include all modes of transportation
including roadway, rail, transit, air, bicycle,
pedestrian, and freight as well as
alternatives including travel reduction
programs and telecommunications.
ADOT is required, by law, to establish a 20-year
Highway Construction Plan by July 1, 2003.
Although ADOT is developing a 20-year
multimodal plan, state law only requires a 20-
year state highway plan.
Currently, ADOT and the State Transportation
Board annually develop and approve a rolling 5-
year highway construction program. While this
process is effective for identifying and
addressing short-term needs, it creates false
expectations that some highway projects may
be funded in the sixth year or the next 5-year
program. A 20-year plan will more reliably
identify the time period during which major
highway corridor improvements can be
expected to be funded under current revenue
projections. Additionally, the State’s
transportation needs and expected revenues
will be more clearly identified.
Performance Based Planning
and Programming
Performance based planning and
programming is being used effectively in
other states to maximize the effectiveness
of limited transportation resources.
Current state, local and regional transportation
plans include very little data concerning the
expected impact of specific projects and
resource allocations on the performance of the
local, regional or state transportation systems.
Transportation agencies elsewhere have
improved the positive correlation among
resource allocations, system improvements, and
the performance of the overall transportation
system by using performance based
processes.48
Colorado, Florida, Montana and Washington
have implemented performance based planning
and programming.49 While each state has
implemented this type of project prioritization
and evaluation process differently, the following
flow chart illustrates some of the common
elements of performance based planning and
programming3:
Figure 1-3-4
Performance Based Planning
POLICIES
Identify Objective
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluate System
Needs
Funding
Available
Identify Alternative
Projects to Meet Needs
Trade-off Projects Based
on Costs and Benefits
Select Project
To Meet Needs
Implement
Evaluate Results
1-3-31
New analytical computer models have been
developed by the U.S. Department of
Transportation to enable transportation
planners and policy makers to evaluate
potential performance outcomes of competing
transportation system improvements within a
particular corridor. For example, the Surface
Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model
(STEAM) compares alternative capital projects
(e.g. mixed-flow freeway lane, HOV lane and
rail extension). STEAM generates various
outputs including travel-time savings, vehicle
emissions, energy costs and benefit/cost ratios.
Another model, known as the Intelligent
Transportation System Deployment, can
estimate the impacts, benefits and costs from
the deployment of various ITS components.49
For years ADOT has utilized performance based
planning and programming to select and fund
pavement preservations projects.
Standardized Transportation Data Collection
and Reporting
There is a lack of verifiable and
standardized data to measure how
effectively transportation improvements
and services are meeting our State’s
existing and future transportation needs.
Federal law requires Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) to develop fiscally
constrained long-range transportation plans.
However, existing MPO plans within Arizona
typically do not clearly identify which services or
improvements can be funded by existing
revenue sources and which cannot be
completed without tax increases.
MPOs and Councils of Governments (COGs)
collect and report data in significantly different
ways. Disparities among MPOs and COGs exist
because of differences in available funding,
expertise, and support for data collection
activities. In recent years, ADOT has developed
Geographic Information System (GIS)-based
data collection software for use by the MPOs
and COGs. Use of the software will assure both
the quality and consistency of collecting
transportation data on a statewide basis.7,8
ADOT and regional planning entities have
worked cooperatively in recent years to improve
the planning and programming process,
through efforts such as the “Casa Grande
Resolves”. Nevertheless, available
transportation data and information varies
widely by jurisdiction, thereby making it very
difficult to perform any statewide analysis or
assessment of our State’s transportation
system.
Transportation and Land Use Planning
There is a distinct gap in the coordination
of land use plans among state, local and
regional transportation plans.
Municipalities or counties are not required to
report major amendments to their general use
or comprehensive land use plans to appropriate
transportation agencies or organizations.
Existing statutes only require municipalities and
counties to consider impacts of proposed
changes on adjacent communities and
infrastructure. They are not required to
consider the impacts to a region’s overall
transportation system, when developing land
use plans or approving developments.
Local and county governments often fail to limit
development along state highway bypass
routes, thereby eroding their effectiveness and
creating the need for additional, costly bypass
routes.
Frequently, cities and counties are pressured by
homeowners associations, businesses or
developers to ignore adopted regional
guidelines governing corridor preservation,
access control standards and traffic light
spacing on routes of regional significance.
Failure to adhere to these guidelines adversely
impacts traffic flows along these designated
corridors and creates congestion and traffic
delays.
The Arizona Legislature has enacted legislation,
in recent years, to help protect commercial
service and military airports from adjacent
development. However, there is no regional
entity or legal mechanism to modify airport
operations or to ensure that local or county
1-3-32
land use plans do not adversely impact airports
or air space corridors.
Casa Grande Resolves
Federal, state and regional transportation
officials have worked to streamline
transportation planning and programming
processes and to improve communication
and cooperation among these various
agencies.
In the spring of 1999, representatives of ADOT,
the Federal Highway Administration (HWA),
MPOs and COGs throughout Arizona met in
Casa Grande to discuss and develop a new
statewide transportation planning and
programming process. The group adopted a
document known as the “Casa Grande
Resolves”, which outlines seven guiding
principles for better transportation planning and
programming. These seven guiding principles
are listed below.
There will be one multimodal transportation
planning process for each region that is
seamless to the public which includes early
and regular dialogue and interaction at the
state and regional level and recognizes the
needs of state, local and tribal governments
and regional organizations.
It will be a process that encourages early
and frequent public participation and
stakeholder involvement and that meets the
requirements of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and other
state and federal planning requirements.
The policy and transportation objectives of
the state, regional and local plans will form
the foundation for the statewide Long-Range
Transportation Plan (20 years).
The statewide Five-Year Transportation Plan
and Programs will be based on clearly
defined and agreed to information and
assumptions including there sources
available, performance measures, and other
technical information.
Each project programmed (within the Five-
Year Plan) shall be linked to the statewide
Long-Range Transportation Plan with each
project selected to achieve one or more of
the Plan objectives. The program will
represent an equitable allocation of
resources.
Implementation of the Plan and Program
shall be monitored using a common database
of regularly updated program information
and allocations.
There will be a shared responsibility by state,
local and tribal governments and regional
organizations to ensure that Plan and
Program implementation meets the
transportation needs of the people of
Arizona.
Among other changes, the 1999 meeting led to
the creation of a Resource Allocation Advisory
Committee (RAAC) to help develop policies and
annual recommendations regarding the
allocations of ADOT’s discretionary funding.
Arizona Transportation Information System
New computer technology (e.g., Highway
Performance Measurement Systems) have
made it feasible for the State to develop an
affordable and comprehensive
transportation database to inventory and
monitor state, county, local and tribal
roadway systems.
Over the last five years ADOT has been
developing and implementing the Arizona
Transportation Information System (ATIS) to
enable the State to maintain a geographic
information system (GIS) database and photo
log of all major highways, streets and roads
throughout the state.50
ATIS is used to assist in the collection of
Highway Performance Measurement System
data, thereby providing a core set of
information for all public roads. Certified public
mileage and responsible jurisdiction, estimated
traffic counts and vehicle miles traveled,
function classification or degree of regional
significance, roadway surface type, roadway
surface condition, and number of lanes are
among the data collected.50
Data and photo logs for the over 6,600 miles of
state highways has been entered into the ATIS.
However, the data and photo logs for county,
1-3-33
local and tribal roads have not been entered due
to limited funding and the fact that these
jurisdictions submit this information voluntarily.
Tribal roadways could be included in the
database, if the tribes collected and submitted
the required data.50
The entire ATIS database, including photo logs,
could be completed and updated for
approximately $600,000 per year for five years.
Thereafter, the projected cost to maintain the
system is about $300,000 per year.50
Transportation Governance Issues
State Transportation Board
Some provisions in state law dealing with
the State Transportation Board are
outdated and limit the ability of growing
urban and rural communities to submit
viable candidates for the Governor’s
consideration.
ARS 28-301 divides the State into six
transportation districts and provides for the
appointment of one Transportation Board
member from each district, except two are
appointed from the Maricopa County district.
Some districts cover just one county and one
district is comprised of four counties. The
boundaries of the current six districts were
created by legislation over 20 years ago.
ARS 28-302 requires the Governor to rotate the
appointment of board members from multi-county
districts, among the counties in the
district. Some growing urban areas must wait
long periods of time before a resident of their
county can be considered for appointment. For
example, District 6 covers four counties: La Paz,
Mohave, Yavapai and Yuma. Under current
law, these counties can only have direct
representation on the State Transportation
Board every 18 years. There is concern that
this antiquated requirement fosters
parochialism regarding what projects are
included in the State’s Five-Year Highway
Construction Program.
Under current law, only two of the seven
members (29%) of the State Transportation
Board come from Maricopa County, even
though 60% of Arizona’s total population, 45%
of statewide daily VMT, and 55% of all
registered vehicles are in Maricopa County.
The graph below illustrates the percentage of
population, daily VMT and registered vehicles
for Maricopa County, Pima County and the
remainder of the State.
Figure 1-3-5
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, ADOT Data Center and Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percentage
Population DVMT Vehicle Registration
Percentage of Population, DVMT and Registered Vehicles
Maricopa County Pima County Remainder of State
1-3-34
Following the passage of the ½% freeway
sales tax in Maricopa County in 1985,
ADOT and the State Transportation Board
shifted more of ADOT’s discretionary
monies to make major improvements on
several key rural highways.
Prior to 1985, approximately 60% of ADOT’s
discretionary funding went to major
improvements on highways within the Maricopa
County region. From 1986 through 1999, the
percentage of annual ADOT discretionary
funding allocated to this region steadily
declined. According to some estimates only
19% was allocated to the Maricopa County
region in 1998.3 The graph the following page
illustrates the steady decline in ADOT
discretionary funding to the Maricopa County
region.
This shift in allocation of ADOT’s discretionary
funding over this 13-year period, enabled ADOT
and the State Transportation Board to program
major improvements on several key rural
highways, such as SR 90, the Beeline Highway
and US 93.
Figure 1-3-6
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation Planning Division
Regional Planning Organizations
Mayors elected from individual cities
control the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations within the State. This
structure establishes an inherent conflict
between the regional responsibilities of the
MPO and the local responsibilities of each
mayor. Locally elected mayors are
obligated to represent the best interests of
their constituents and most act
accordingly. Therefore, regional plans and
priorities are